Former nuncio now says sanctions against McCarrick were ‘private’

[Ghosty1981]

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…

This. There is a pervading sickness in the Church hierarchy, and it needs to be addressed. Pope Francis is only part of it, and it goes back to previous Papacies as well.

Hopefully these recent events will lead to the reform the Church obviously needs.

 

[ucfengr]

Let’s say for the sake of argument that Archbishop Vigano is walking back his letter. I think a fair question to ask is why is he “walking” it back. Is it because what he is starting to acknowledge that what he wrote is largely a fabrication designed to hurt Pope Francis, or is it because someone got to him. In the past, the Church has been accused of using “La Costra Nostra” like tactics when dealing with these issues. I’m sure there’s something on Vigano that he wouldn’t want exposed, or if not him, somebody he cares about.

This. There is a pervading sickness in the Church hierarchy, and it needs to be addressed. Pope Francis is only part of it, and it goes back to previous Papacies as well.

I must confess, this causes me to question the Church’s wisdom in the early Beatification of Pope John Paul II.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I believe, perhaps naively, Archbishop Vigano believed what he originally wrote and sent to the media outlets.

After when other members of the Church began pointing at the multiple holes in his letter, he started to backpedal.

Now he’s caught in a bind, either withdraw the letter, or try to dance around what he meant.

Either way, his error was to release the letter in the first place. He should have known that the enemies of the Church would use it for their purposes, and in the end, we Catholics are going to pay the price.

Jim

 

[ucfengr]

He should have known that the enemies of the Church would use it for their purposes, and in the end, we Catholics are going to pay the price.

It’s not the “enemies of the Church” that are the problem here, it’s the “friends of the Church” who seem content to let the Vatican sweep another sex abuse scandal under the rug.

 

[Ghosty1981]

It’s not the “enemies of the Church” that are the problem here, it’s the “friends of the Church” who seem content to let the Vatican sweep another sex abuse scandal under the rug.

Indeed. Using “the enemies of the Church” to chastise and effect change in the People of God is kind of God’s MO.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The friends of the Church are us faithful Catholics who want the Church to provide healing and unity, not division and pain through pointing fingers.

Jim

 

[ucfengr]

The friends of the Church are us faithful Catholics who want the Church to provide healing and unity

Hard to provide healing when you refuse to acknowledge the wound or disease…

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Accusing people of refusing to acknowledge the wound or disease ?

Try sticking to the topic of the thread then we can talk about acknowledging the sins of the Church,

Jim

 

[OraLabora]

Hard to provide healing when you refuse to acknowledge the wound or disease…

Well, I would say that Pope Emeritus’s “sanctions” were very mild and, in St. Benedict’s words “were not the cautery of excommunication or the knife of amputation”. Someone of a malicious mind could even accuse Benedict of coverup. However I do not believe for one instant that Benedict tried to cover anything up with McCarrick. What I think happened is that Benedict lived up to his name and his deep knowledge of Benedictine spirituality (it is believed he is a Benedictine oblate). I believe he was following the Rule of Saint Benedict’s graduated approach of dealing with delinquent monks:

If a brother who has been frequently corrected for some fault,
and even excommunicated,
does not amend,
let a harsher correction be applied,
that is, let the punishment of the rod be administered.

But if he still does not reform
or perhaps (which God forbid)
even rises up in pride and wants to defend his conduct,
then let the Abbot do what a wise physician would do.
Having used applications,
the ointments of exhortation,
the medicines of the Holy Scriptures,
finally the cautery of excommunication
and of the strokes of the rod,
if he sees that his efforts are of no avail,
let him apply a still greater remedy,
his own prayers and those of all the others,
that the Lord, who can do all things
may restore health to the brother who is sick.

But if he is not healed even in this way,
then let the Abbot use the knife of amputation,
according to the Apostle’s words,
“Expel the evil one from your midst” (1 Cor. 5:13),
and again,
“If the faithless one departs, let him depart” (1 Cor. 7:15)
lest one diseased sheep contaminate the whole flock.

There is no doubt in my mind that Benedict probably had this in mind. Why did Francis remove the sanctions? Perhaps because he saw they were ineffective. More likely because the Church is in the mercy business. It’s in her DNA. Perhaps he was sufficiently satisfied with McCarrick’s contrition. I doubt we will never know.

What we do know however, was when McCarrick’s behaviour allegedly became critical, Francis did NOT cover up, he used the “knife of amputation” as suggested in the Rule of St. Benedict.

And that to me is all that matters in this affair.

 

[ucfengr]

Well, I would say that Pope Emeritus’s “sanctions” were very mild and, in St. Benedict’s words “were not the cautery of excommunication or the knife of amputation”.

I would agree.

What we do know however, was when McCarrick’s behaviour allegedly became critical, Francis did NOT cover up, he used the “knife of amputation” as suggested in the Rule of St. Benedict.

I think this is still TBD.

 

[kyrie03]

Jim, how could you KNOW that Vigano and the media hate Pope Francis? If you truly believe this, then it makes sense why you can’t look objectively at the testimony.

And regarding the media, WHICH media is 'piling it on Pope Francis"? In MSM, I’ve seen a few editorial and the occasional airing out the testimony side by side with their opinion calling into doubt tits truthfulness through ad hominum attacks on Vigano’s motivations. The media doesn’t care about homosexuality…unless it’s with a minor. They’d love to see Church Doctrines destroyed. So their bias would be against Vigano.

Don’t you think it’s important to know what is TRUE? Only an investigation can ferret that out.

 

[kyrie03]

Can you point out where Vigano is backpedaling? Are you READING his statements after the testimony?

. He should have known that the enemies of the Church would use it for their purposes, and in the end, we Catholics are going to pay the price.

The enemies of the Church don’t care about a particular person (i.e. Pope Francis) They care about HIS OFFICE - the moral authority of the Papacy and the credibility of the Church. THAT is what they seek to destroy.

Do you not see that exposure of rot (should there be any…and we know there is based on McCarrick case and PA report, never-mind Vigano’s testimony) and cleaning it up is the only way to restore the credibility of the Church?

 

[kyrie03]

Thanks for posting Rule of St Benedict in dealing with delinquent monks. It’s a good rule for ALL OF US to follow.

Do you know if there are more specific rules dealing with sodomy amongst monks? I’ve posted what St Basil (from whom St Benedict derived his rule) says should be done with monks engaging in this specific form of deviant behavior. Do you think his recommendations are part of the Church’s merciful DNA?

“The cleric or monk who molests youths or boys or is caught kissing or committing some turpitude, let him be whipped in public, deprived of his tonsure, and reduced to eating rye bread once a day in the evening three times per week. After six months living in a separate cell under the custody of a wise elder with great spiritual experience, let him be subjected to prayers, vigils and manual work, always under the guard of two spiritual brothers, without being allowed to have any relationship . . . with young people.” ( *St. Basil the Great, in St. Peter Damien, Liber Gomorrhianu)

That the Church today recognizes pedophilia and has worked through the Dallas Charter to make children safe is abundantly clear…seems to be working.

However, the Church’s DNA seems to have changed when dealing with sodomy (consensual or not) in the clergy. And THIS (along with being an engaging personality and tremendous fundraiser) is what allowed McCarrick to rise to the prominence he attained. It was only when the credible charge that he abused a minor came to light that he was formally and publicly disciplined.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Well, Vigano called for Pope Francis resignation and the media have been pushing this since he released his scathing letter.

First it was the conservative news services of The National Catholic Register, Lifesitenews and The Church Militant.

The MSM picked up the stories from these sources and ran with them, even though the MSM would never go with other stories like abortion and same sex marriage.

Jim

 

[graciew]

I think this is still TBD.

It was _after_the concrete " knife of amputation" that Monsignor Vigano had his letter published.
Why?
Why is he in the hiding?
Sorry but…what do priests in war zones have to say about the dangers they are living among?
Now,after the concrete sanctions, and a coming trial, he is directly involved in affair of the cover ups, he speaks about it. He has it published.
So excuse me but is he trying to save his neck by speaking and handing out names as high as he can get before he is summoned as part of this?
As far as I can see ,he doesn t care.much he is playing bowling and has hit three Popes with unsubstantiated " I said",“he said”.
It is him who has distracted from the sight of the victims .
This is also possible,and it wouldn’t t be the first time there are contradictions in his sayings.
It is weird that he hides. That isn t normal to put it somehow. Or it is exaggerated at best.
Come out and help the investigation, but not draw all this attention onto himself so as to " feel" protected.
And all this is mine.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The article which this thread is about is a backpedal from his original letter he released.

Jim

 

[OraLabora]

Do you know if there are more specific rules dealing with sodomy amongst monks?

No. Sodomy is not mentioned in the Rule. It doesn’t mention specific kinds of delicts except minor ones such as making a mistake in choir or being careless with objects. There is mention about sleeping arrangements in dormitories, where older monks were to have their beds in between younger monks but nothing more than that. And it’s a rule that is obsolete now as monks usually sleep in their own cell.

 

[13pollitos]

There could be ligitimate reasons he is hiding. Time and a thorough investigation will tell.

 

[graciew]

Then, he should recourse to the Police. .Period.
But not this sort of " self proclaimed" " protected witness" stuff.
It is weird,Pollitos…But it is true also that I do not know law how works there in Italy.

 

[MapleLeaf1]

Now, we learn that Pope Francis would not have known about those sanctions, because even Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI doesn’t remember the details on them. The fact is, it was Pope Francis who placed strict sanctions on McCarrick and had him removed from ministry 100% and had him move out of the seminary house where he was living.

I think that the “private sanctions” is relatively consistent to what we knew all along. Francis’ sanctions were stiffer, of course.

I hope I don’t open too big of a can of worms here, but as a Canadian, I don’t know much about the Kim Davis situation. Why would it be seen as a bad thing if she met the Pope?