A
AZ42
Guest
This article is disturbing. It seems Pope Francis did cover up for McCarrick.
Last edited:
Letter confirms Vatican officials knew of McCarrick allegations in 2000
- Status
This article is disturbing. It seems Pope Francis did cover up for McCarrick.
F
FormerXCatholic
Guest
I tend to believe that Pope Francis did indeed know he was homosexual but not necessarily abusive. He promoted him under the belief that he was a celibate homosexual. Wishful thinking.
D
Dlee
Guest
I just don’t know what to say - I’ll keep praying.
T
Theo2
Guest
In my view, Pope Francis showed mercy. McCarrick was probable very contrite and his sins occurs a long time ago. At least the acts where children were abused. What would Jesus have done? The same thing.
I thing the attacks on the Pope are unjustified and will cause a big split in the church. Just what the devil wants.
I thing the attacks on the Pope are unjustified and will cause a big split in the church. Just what the devil wants.
J
jack63
Guest
I don’t agree this is evidence of much. This is evidence that somebody in the Vatican knew somebody accused McCarrick of something a long time ago.
They are asking “What Happened?” in this letter…
As I asked in a previous thread…
Let’s say Pope Francis did know seminarians accused McCarrick of something years ago.
Nobody is talking about minors. If this was settled out of court, nobody, including Pope Francis, will know the details and there will be no admission of guilt by anybody.
How can you ask Pope Francis to resign over this?!
They are asking “What Happened?” in this letter…
As I asked in a previous thread…
Let’s say Pope Francis did know seminarians accused McCarrick of something years ago.
Nobody is talking about minors. If this was settled out of court, nobody, including Pope Francis, will know the details and there will be no admission of guilt by anybody.
How can you ask Pope Francis to resign over this?!
Last edited:
1
13pollitos
Guest
I don’t want the pope to resign. But how is it that we as Catholics can dismiss abusive behavior as long as minors are not involved? How can the bishops (especially the Bishop of Rome!) continuously look the other way while a clergy member continuously breaks their vows? Even joking that they need to “hide the handsome ones” before he visits the seminaries? And not just look the other way, but promote him? Why are we making excuses, attempting to own play or shift blame, and attempting to shame others into silence? How is that transparency and zero tolerance?
I want Pope Francis to stay an lead. He needs to speak on this clearly and show us how this mess came to be while laying out a plan to ensure we won’t be bombarded again in 16 years.
I want Pope Francis to stay an lead. He needs to speak on this clearly and show us how this mess came to be while laying out a plan to ensure we won’t be bombarded again in 16 years.
F
FormerXCatholic
Guest
Even if he believed this, you dont promote a pedo. McCarrick may have answered to God but he didnt answer to society. I dont think Jesus would have promoted him. Just forgave him and told him to sin no more.
A
abucs
Guest
There is no argument to that.
There is mercy and then there is something else dressed up as mercy.
If anything is the devil. That is it.
There is a rigid need to face down the devil and his pretend mercy.
Last edited:
K
kgmlg
Guest
I think I am missing something here. Yes, the “Vatican” seemed to have some information about this, but the “Vatican” does not necessarily mean the “Pope”. How many CEOs of huge companies (or heads of state for that matter) really know the itty bitty gritty details of the entire company on all levels?
Let’s not crucify anybody without real proof…or let’s not crucify anybody at all. Just investigate, and try and right the wrong.
And yes, prayer…lot’s of it, is definitely needed.
Let’s not crucify anybody without real proof…or let’s not crucify anybody at all. Just investigate, and try and right the wrong.
And yes, prayer…lot’s of it, is definitely needed.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
The headline assumes facts not in evidence. All the letter indicates is that a person in the Vatican (AB Sandri) knew there were some allegations made in 2000.
If you would read the letter before leaping, you would have noticed the concern was with seminarians. Children do not attend seminary.
1
13pollitos
Guest
I know that. I asked why abuse of adults is not taken seriously throughout this scandal. My exact words were
But how is it that we as Catholics can dismiss abusive behavior as long as minors are not involved?
Child abuse is horrendous. Abuse is also horrendous when it happens to adults.
But how is it that we as Catholics can dismiss abusive behavior as long as minors are not involved?
Child abuse is horrendous. Abuse is also horrendous when it happens to adults.
P
pnewton
Guest
My bad.
I also wonder if some of the investigation (that will hopefully come) will focus on the disobedience to the the last three popes to not accept seminaries with homosexual tenancies to stops this type of behavior in seminaries. The letter could be seen as a way to check in to that problem, or both issues.
I also wonder if some of the investigation (that will hopefully come) will focus on the disobedience to the the last three popes to not accept seminaries with homosexual tenancies to stops this type of behavior in seminaries. The letter could be seen as a way to check in to that problem, or both issues.
1
13pollitos
Guest
I hope you are right. There are so many things that should be investigated and rectified.
All of us agree abuse of minors is unacceptable and thankfully we have some protections in place for mandatory reporting. Every diocese has a message about their protection of minors policy in their website. That is good. But what policies exist for mandatory reporting of abuse on adults, not limited to seminarians? That is a serious question. It seems that the 2002 policy was specifically for minors and I haven’t seen anything about adults. Is the abuse of seminarians and other adults still kept quiet? It sure seems to be. And many people seem to blow of adult abuse, stating “no minors involved” as if that makes it no big deal.
All of us agree abuse of minors is unacceptable and thankfully we have some protections in place for mandatory reporting. Every diocese has a message about their protection of minors policy in their website. That is good. But what policies exist for mandatory reporting of abuse on adults, not limited to seminarians? That is a serious question. It seems that the 2002 policy was specifically for minors and I haven’t seen anything about adults. Is the abuse of seminarians and other adults still kept quiet? It sure seems to be. And many people seem to blow of adult abuse, stating “no minors involved” as if that makes it no big deal.
M
Michael96
Guest
And the Pope in this case (year 2006) is Benedict XVI.
Last edited:
T
Theo2
Guest
The Pope did not promote him. He removed a restriction. If you are going to be judgmental please be accurate.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
There are about 200 cardinals. A homosexual sex scandal about any one of them has the potential to seriously damage faith in the Church in that area of the world and beyond (this is why it is well known in Vatican circles that issues surrounding gay sex are blackmail material). If the popes were NOT informed of this issue with McCarrick, we have arguably an even worse problem on our hands, because it shows that the Vatican is incompetent, and does not even WANT to protect the faithful from scandal.
Moreover, the most likely reason the popes wouldn’t be informed would be that there are just too many such cases to inform the pope about every one. But that doesn’t sound like a very charitable or reassuring assumption…
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
So you’re saying that a cardinal who sexually harassed seminarians repeatedly over the course of decades needn’t be contrite for doing so? You’re saying that it’s MERCY to allow such an unrepentant cardinal to retain his position? Cause that’s what I’m getting out of your statement above.
Apparently Jesus said to the adulterous woman, “Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin some more.”
Last edited:
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
This doesn’t prove anything about Pope Francis.
In 2000 ( reign of Pope St. JPII), someone made confidential accusations. In 2006 (reign of Pope Benedict XVI), Sandri asked for more information.
Rumors and unconfirmed allegations in 2000 and 2006 do not prove that Pope Francis knew anything.
He was in Argentina at this time. He wasn’t even created Cardinal until 2001.
In 2000 ( reign of Pope St. JPII), someone made confidential accusations. In 2006 (reign of Pope Benedict XVI), Sandri asked for more information.
Rumors and unconfirmed allegations in 2000 and 2006 do not prove that Pope Francis knew anything.
He was in Argentina at this time. He wasn’t even created Cardinal until 2001.
Last edited:
C
commenter
Guest
A few decades ago, boys entered seminary as young as 14. Teens not in seminary often visited there, sometimes overnight.The headline assumes facts not in evidence. All the letter indicates is that a person in the Vatican (AB Sandri) knew there were some allegations made in 2000.
13pollitos:
If you would read the letter before leaping, you would have noticed the concern was with seminarians. Children do not attend seminary.
C
commenter
Guest
True. And we can’t assume a Pope is aware of everything that every employee in the Vatican knows.kgmlg:
And the Pope in this case (year 2006) is Benedict XVI.
The problem in my opinion is not that Pope Francis had information he should have acted on, but that he often acts with only limited information.
If he regards most of the US hierarchy as “right wing” conservatives, and fires competent conservatives from the Vatican, and relies on people like Fr. Rosica, Fr. Martin and (allegedly) ABP McCarrick, for advice about America, you will likely get bad decisions and miscommunications.
Last edited:
- Status