Former nuncio now says sanctions against McCarrick were ‘private’

[Ghosty1981]

So while the interdicts may be the same, the scope and enforceability of a private vs. public sanction are very much different. Hence the use of the word “similar” is misleading.

No, that is pretty much the dictionary definition of similar, as opposed to identical. Vigano even laid out the poibts that he was calling similar, and they are the very ones you bring up here.

 

[kyrie03]

I’ve been reading though your comments and wonder about your perception.

Do you think, based on the contradictions you’ve illustrated, we should all ignore Vigono’s testimony? Or perhaps do an investigation of Vigano?

Do you think the US Catholic Bishops, including the head of USCCB: Cardinal DiNardo, are wrong to urge for an investigation into the serious questions raised?

 

[kyrie03]

As I read it, Ganswein (aid to both Pope Francis and Pope Benedict Emeritus), only addressed that Pope Benedict did not and will not comment on the allegations made in the testimony of Vigano. (He probably had not even seen the testimony yet so of course could not comment). However, Ganswein did NOT address whether Benedict had confirmed or denied any sanctions imposed on McCarrick.

 

[Ghosty1981]

That is my understanding as well. Initially I thought he was denying the latter, but the article itself indicates otherwise.

 

[OraLabora]

No, that is pretty much the dictionary definition of similar, as opposed to identical. Vigano even laid out the poibts that he was calling similar, and they are the very ones you bring up here.

Except that the impact of the part that is different is very much critical to the whole debate!

 

[Ghosty1981]

Except that the impact of the part that is different is very much critical to the whole debate!

Which debate? This thread is about Vigano supposedly contradicting himself. No one, not even Vigano, has claimed that Benedict’s sanctions were sufficient, only that Pope Francis rescinded even those.

 

[kyrie03]

Have you read the article Ghosty linked where Vigano addresses the questions you are asking?

“I was not in the position of enforcing,” Viganó told LifeSiteNews, “especially because the measures (sanctions) given to McCarrick (were made) in a private way. That was the decision of Pope Benedict.”

Viganó said Pope Benedict made McCarrick’s sanctions private, perhaps “due to the fact that he (McCarrick) was already retired, maybe due to the fact that he (Benedict) was thinking he was ready to obey.”

Viganó, nuncio from October 2011 to April 2016, explained he was just beginning his role as the Pope’s representative at the time when each of the events in the various video clips edited together by CNS took place, and just learning the culture and hierarchy of his new assignment in the U.S.

Aside from just beginning in his mission, he said, the nuncio is not somebody who may enforce restrictions directly, especially with a cardinal, who is considered the superior. Such an enforcement would belong to someone in the position of Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, and McCarrick successor, said Viganó.

Maybe we aren’t aware of how things are structured and how it all works in the hierarchy and that is what is causing the some of inconsistencies we are finding?

 

[OraLabora]

Which debate? This thread is about Vigano supposedly contradicting himself. No one, not even Vigano, has claimed that Benedict’s sanctions were sufficient, only that Pope Francis rescinded even those.

Vigano is making the serious accusation of a coverup by the Holy Father, in fact accusing the Holy Father of not upholding his own zero-tolerance policy. Except that when McCarrick’s criminal accusation became known, the Holy Father did, in fact, uphold his zero-tolerance policy and publicly sanctioned McCarrick.

Something simply does not add up. A private sanction known only to Pope Benedict Vigano and McCarrick until Vigano allegedly informed the Pope Francis about it, that was clearly neither being obeyed, nor enforced… which Francis is criticized for lifting, i.e. lifting a not widely known, unenforced and unobserved sanction so that McCarrick could, in fact, prowl any diocese he wanted to or even the Vatican with impunity. And moreover, McCarrick was officially retired on top of it. And somehow the Holy Father is guilty of a cover-up?

I don’t think so.

 

[kyrie03]

Also, blindsiding Pope Francis by secretly setting up a meeting between him and Kim Davis, and notifying the media about it for political purposes, shows the devient agenda Vigano has against Pope Francis.

Read the following explanation of the Kim Davis incident.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/lifesite/Kim_Davis_-English-E-_final.pdf

And here is the memo Vigano provided to Pope Francis prior to the Kim Davis meeting:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/lifesite/Kim_Davis_Pro-Memoria_for_Pope_Francis.pdf

 

[Ghosty1981]

Something simply does not add up. A private sanction known only to Pope Benedict Vigano and McCarrick until Vigano allegedly informed the Pope Francis about it, that was clearly neither being obeyed, nor enforced… which Francis is criticized for lifting, i.e. lifting a not widely known, unenforced and unobserved sanction. And moreover, McCarrick was officially retired on top of it. And somehow the Holy Father is guilty of a cover-up?

First of all, the sanctions were not known only to McCarrick, Benedict, and Vigano; we have already seen evidence and confirmation that the Diocese of Washington knew about the matter and assisted the nuncio’s in enforcing the sanctions. The sanctions were not consistently enforced, that is apparent, but we don’t know why.

Secondly, this seems to be a matter more for the other on-going thread about Vigano’s accusations, as this doesn’t seem to be about Vigano’s clarification about the private nature of the original sanctions. I’m not a moderator, obviously, just making a suggestion in order to keep the discussions clean and clear.

 

[kyrie03]

And somehow the Holy Father is guilty of a cover-up?

The cover-up alleged isn’t for McCarrick’s abuse of a minor (that wasn’t known until this year). The cover-up alleged is that Pope Francis was informed of McCarrick’s acts with seminarians and priests. Perhaps Pope Francis doesn’t consider “consenting adult activities” up for him to judge?

 

[OraLabora]

Secondly, this seems to be a matter more for the other on-going thread about Vigano’s accusations, as this doesn’t seem to be about Vigano’s clarification about the private nature of the original sanctions. I’m not a moderator, obviously, just making a suggestion in order to keep the discussions clean and clear.

I think my points are directly related to the fact that the sanctions are now admitted to be private, as that greatly changes their scope and enforceability, and greatly reduce the notion that somehow Pope Francis was guilty of a coverup.

But nor am I a moderator.

 

[Ghosty1981]

I think my points are directly related to the fact that the sanctions are now admitted to be private, as that greatly changes their scope and enforceability, and greatly reduce the notion that somehow Pope Francis was guilty of a coverup.

Well, the account was always that they were private. Everything describing them in the testimony indicated that they were private, it just wasn’t explicitly stated. Their scope was the same, purportedly, but their enforcibility obviously wasn’t as very few people knew what McCarrick should and shouldn’t be doing, and Pope Benedict apparently did not have the will to get heavy with McCarrick for violating the sanctions.

Vigano’s assertion is simply that Pope Francis removed even these sanctions, and elevated McCarrick’s importance despite clear reason not to. Whether or not this is a high offense worthy of resignation is another matter.

 

[tafan2]

Again, he obviously didn’t intend similiar to cover that. He used the term and the gave a list of the similiar characteristics. By your logic, any difference at all in the sanctions between the two Pope’s, heck even the fact that the sanctions were applied by two different Pope’s, means they can’t be similiar. Hence, Vigano is lying.

 

[OraLabora]

Private vs public changes the very nature of the sanction. It’s like comparing twins, but one is male, the other female. They may look similar, but their natures are very different.

In this case, the penalties are the same, but enforceability is not. That goes to the core of the penalty. A penalty that relies on a scofflaw’s good will is hardly a severe penalty.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

We should be skeptical of Vigano’s accusations because for one, going to the public media sources he used, shows an ideological agenda he’s serving, rather than the good of the Church.

Second, what purpose is all this serving other than right now the secular media is picking up the negatives against Pope Francis and the Church and running with them ?

Do you think the same media won’t turn on Vigano if he were to succeed in getting Pope Francis removed ?

Heck no, they only thing they and Vigano have in common right now is their hatred toward the Pope and the media will use Vigano to serve their agenda.

Jim

 

[twf]

McCarrick was aided and abbetted for decades. If the Holy Father is guiltless, others are guilty. I feel all this debate over the personal guilt of Pope Francis is a distraction from the deeper issue of coverups for wayward bishops among the hierarchy. In my books, Cardinals who abuse and / or coverup is not much better than a pope who did so…

 

[exnihilo]

We should be skeptical of Vigano’s accusations because for one, going to the public media sources he used, shows an ideological agenda he’s serving, rather than the good of the Church.

Why is that?

If the Church really does have a homosexual cabal which promotes homosexual priests then the media might be the only way to get change. Unfortunately this seems very credible given the fact McCarrick was a notorious homosexual who perverted seminarians yet no one in leadership seems to know anything about that.

If the Church as an institution is allowing young men to be abused by homosexual priests then it needs to be stopped. That can’t be done from within if within is corrupted.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The Church Militant, aka Michael Voris is a radical unChristian representation of what he thinks the Church Church should be,

However, when he ran Reel Catholic Radio, the Bishop of Detroit ordered him to remove the word “Catholic,” from his title, for he doesn’t speak for the Catholic Church. The Bishop was upset of his attacks of Catholics who don’t fit Voris idea of what a Catholic should be. Michael Voris is not the Pope, and has no authority to teach in the Catholic Church.

Lifesitenews has had a dislike for Pope Francis and it’s been acknowledge in this forum for a while now. They also lack credibility in their reports.

Jim

 

[exnihilo]

No, why would it matter that those are the sources who released this letter? You wouldn’t expect the sources who love Francis to release them, would you? I wouldn’t expect the mainstream media to release it, because they help cover up homosexuality in the Church. So who else would release it? Regardless, all that matters is are the allegations true.