In New Letter, Archbishop Viganò Calls on McCarrick to Publicly Repent

[yankeesouth]

In New Letter, Archbishop Viganò Calls on McCarrick to Publicly Repent

The retired nuncio says in an open letter to the disgraced former Archbishop of Washington that a public act of repentance would bring “healing to a gravely wounded and suffering Church.”

www.ncregister.com

“Are you willing to offer her that gift?,” Archbishop Viganò wrote. “Christ died for us all when we were still sinners,” he said, citing Romans 5:8. “He only asks that we respond by repenting and doing the good that we are given to do.”

He implored McCarrick to make such an act of repentance “so as to make the Church rejoice and present yourself before the tribunal of Our Lord cleansed by His blood.”

“Please, do not make His sacrifice on the cross void for you,” he said. “Christ, Our Good Lord, continues to love you. Put your entire trust in His Sacred Heart. And pray to Mary, as I and many others are doing, asking her to intercede for the salvation of your soul.”

 

[yankeesouth]

@camoderator… please move to Catholic News. Thank you.

 

[MapleLeaf1]

Well, it’s a good letter, and I’m glad he wrote it, but I wonder if it could have been sent privately.

 

[twf]

It concerns public sins that are hurting the entire Church.

 

[Ardent_Fire]

My only question, regarding any public act of repentance, is whether or not McCarrick is actually allowed to even make any public statements at all.

 

[tafan2]

He likely isn’t. I do not see how a public act if repentance would help the Church. I do pray he has repented.

 

[Casilda]

I wonder if it could have been sent privately

We should correct a brother in Christ privately, in person. If your brother will not hear you, you take 2-3 brothers with you. If they are still obstinate you seek the church’s correction of that individual. Matthew 18

I do not agree with Vigano 's latest letter. Now he is grandstanding.

 

[exnihilo]

I can see why you might say it, but it seems like Vigano did all those things and was ignored. There is no instruction for the individual as to what to do if all three previous steps fail. The problem Vigano reveals is that taking it to the Church isn’t working right now.

 

[Crusader13]

MapleLeaf1:

I wonder if it could have been sent privately

We should correct a brother in Christ privately, in person. If your brother will not hear you, you take 2-3 brothers with you. If they are still obstinate you seek the church’s correction of that individual. Matthew 18

I do not agree with Vigano 's latest letter. Now he is grandstanding.

Unfortunately PRIVACY is what got the Church into this mess. Let’s quietly and privately move this priest to another diocese, let’s privately and quietly talk about father so and so, and see if we can handle these allegations without altering the public and I think the bishops should be allowed to investigate themselves (privately).

More and more allegations and information are coming to light about who knew what and who failed to act. None of what we are learning about would’ve ever come to light without the whistleblowers who sacrificed much to do so. It would’ve all reminded hidden in secrecy behind lies and cover ups, while the rest of the laity respected their “privacy”.

 

[Joe_5859]

He likely isn’t. I do not see how a public act if repentance would help the Church. I do pray he has repented.

I guess I interpreted the request as less of a public act of reparation than a public acknowledgement of guilt.

 

[Crusader13]

I guess I interpreted the request as less of a public act of reparation than a public acknowledgement of guilt.

I think you’re correct. If Wuerl shows a public act of reparation, then it shows him guilty of what he’s been adamantly trying to deny.

Why apologize for that which you claim you are not guilty of.

 

[KMC]

MapleLeaf1:

I wonder if it could have been sent privately

We should correct a brother in Christ privately, in person. If your brother will not hear you, you take 2-3 brothers with you. If they are still obstinate you seek the church’s correction of that individual. Matthew 18

I do not agree with Vigano 's latest letter. Now he is grandstanding.

Aquinas addresses this. From what I can tell Aquinas makes a distinction between public and private sins, and public and private correction (ST, II of II, Q33):

I answer that, With regard to the public denunciation of [sins] it is necessary to make a distinction: because sins may be either public or secret. On the case of public sins, a remedy is required not only for the sinner, that he may become better, but also for others, who know of his sin, lest they be scandalized. Wherefore such like sins should be denounced in public, according to the saying of the Apostle (1 Timothy 5:20): “Them that sinreprove before all, that the rest also may have fear,” which is to be understood as referring to public sins, as Augustine states (De Verb. Dom. xvi, 7).

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3033.htm

there is quite a bit more beyond this, I recommend reading.

My theology professor from last semester wrote an article about the public correction of Pope Francis…there are some very good citations that would also apply here

On the Moral Liceity of Publicly Correcting the Pope

There is a good bit of confusion currently among faithful Catholics about whether it was morally licit for the pastors and theologians to make public their filial correction of the Holy Father…

onepeterfive.com

 

[verum_quaeritis]

From the OnePeterFive article, someone posted:

"This idiotic notion that if we just keep our heads down and pretend nothing is happening the Church will somehow eventually self-correct is to court the very gates of hell. The reason those gates have never and will never prevail is not because Christ supernaturally intervenes, accomplishing by fiat what his followers are too cowardly to undertake; instead, it is because Christ has always and will always spur faithful men to action to ensure that His Bride is never wholly plundered by the enemy.

I totally agree. Vigano is just a very brave man amongst many other very brave men and women who have been spurred to action by Christ throughout the Church’s 2,000 year history.

 

[pnewton]

Is AB Vigano McCarrick’s spiritual director now?

I don’t know that I would trust such a confessor, lest I end up in the news.

 

[twf]

That’s not fair. His Excellency is commenting on public sins, not matters of the internal forum.

 

[pnewton]

Likewise, how I feel is not public. It is simply how I feel, and that is that I do not have confidence in people that use the public media like he does. I do not trust such people. He has no standing to make his statement, in that he is not in authority over McCarrick, yet he sure says a lot to the press. His motives may be as pure as snow, but he still talks a lot to the press over matters which he has not authority to do so.

I will not judge his motives, like has been done here, assuming it is out of bravery.

 

[adgloriam]

I like Viganò. His first letter was under obvious prolonged psychological duress of several kinds. This last one seems a bit nonsensical.

I do not have confidence in people that use the public media like he does.

I guess confidence is based on honesty and truthfulness - and in a way that the persons principles and actions are predictable trustworthy. At this point the Viganò affair is a mess and little be deduced. I’ve said it before: McCarrick was instrumental for pope Francis in wrapping up the deal with China recently. If it weren’t for that end the previous CDF ruling would have been upheld throughout this papcy. Viganò felt scandalized and was kept out of the loop, however there’s plenty of merit to his person - I’ll take honesty over omission, Viganò kept his personal integrity (and prompted everyone in his organization to keep organizational integrity).