Letter confirms Vatican officials knew of McCarrick allegations in 2000

[Prodigal_Son]

I would not disbelieve him. I would, at worst, suspend judgment, pending evidence.

 

[pnewton]

I suppose it is possible that he has taken responsibility to victims but many victims have lied and said that he hasn’t.

There are many victims for whom no amount of responsibility would be sufficient. You can’t un-rape someone, after all. Reparation for this crime is not possible. This being the case, I do not know how to judge what penance is enough to redress a wrong that can never be fully redressed. For this reason, I can see how the offender may believe he has taken responsibility for his actions; and the victim does not believe he has.

 

[jack63]

Vigano’s HONOR is what matters here. And I trust Francis’s honor too. I just want Francis to say something . If he says nothing, I don’t see how to assume that what Vigano says is false. Indeed, presuming Francis IS guilty of what Vigano says, it is precisely his honor that would keep him silent right now.

Perhaps I can say what is being left unsaid here but what “should” be obvious…

The problem here is that if it becomes Vigano’s honor versus the Pope Francis’s honor without meaningful evidence the result may very likely be a schism…especially with conservative American Catholics. The truth likely won’t matter.

I really think Pope Francis is correct to remain silent on this.

 

[pnewton]

The problem here is that if it becomes Vigano’s honor versus the Pope Francis’s honor without meaningful evidence the result may very likely be a schism

I wouldn’t think so. Few I think are willing to jeopardize their salvation over unfounded allegations, regardless of how credible they are.

 

[PeterT]

We have one clear story from someone who was a very high ranking Vatican insider: Vigano. No one at the Vatican has denied his story. Thus, I wouldn’t call it speculation.

Reporters have questioned the accuracy of Viganò’s account. It appears that Viganò has exaggerated and overstated some of his key accusations against Pope Francis. One is that Pope Benedict imposed canonical sanctions on McCarrick that Pope Francis allegedly removed. As the following news analysis from the National Catholic Register (a conservative news agency owned by EWTN) points out, the only way Pope Benedict could have imposed true canonical sanctions on McCarrick would have been for McCarrick to stand trial (in front of a church tribunal) that would have been publicly known. As this news analysis points out, Pope Benedict most likely made a “private request” to McCarrick to curtail his activities, a far cry from “canonical sanctions”.

I think this news analysis from the National Catholic Register is a must read for those who want to be better informed about the strengths and weaknesses of Viganò’s letter.

Benedict, Viganò, Francis and McCarrick: Where Things Stand on Nuncio’s Allegations| National Catholic Register

 

[pnewton]

The first is the effect of a game of ecclesiastical telephone.

From day one I recognized this to be part of the problem of accusing either the Pope or Vigano of lying.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

There are many victims for whom no amount of responsibility would be sufficient. You can’t un-rape someone, after all. Reparation for this crime is not possible. This being the case, I do not know how to judge what penance is enough to redress a wrong that can never be fully redressed. For this reason, I can see how the offender may believe he has taken responsibility for his actions; and the victim does not believe he has.

By “take responsibility”, I just meant saying, “Yes, I did this.” Of course, I agree that such a thing does not repair the damage.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Perhaps I can say what is being left unsaid here but what “should” be obvious…

The problem here is that if it becomes Vigano’s honor versus the Pope Francis’s honor without meaningful evidence the result may very likely be a schism…especially with conservative American Catholics. The truth likely won’t matter.

This is far from obvious to me. Indeed, if Pope Francis had a decent explanation, I would expect that – whatever people believe – plenty of Catholics would proceed precisely as they preceded with some of the mistakes that JPII and Benedict did. Liberal Catholics continued without schism for decades, when they felt the popes were conservative. Conservative Catholics can do the same, at least if the Vatican doesn’t stonewall them.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

I just want Francis to say something . If he says nothing, I don’t see how to assume that what Vigano says is false. Indeed, presuming Francis IS guilty of what Vigano says, it is precisely his honor that would keep him silent right now.

If you believe this, you don’t know Pope Francis well.

1. He hates gossip and innuendo. He always refuses to get involved in it and always advises that we do the same.
2. Pope Francis is not a knee jerk decision kind of guy. He always tries to be slow, deliberate, and consultative. If he speaks it will take time.
3. Pope Francis is Ignatian. When he is faced with crisis and hardship he always always retreats to prayerful silence and discernment (the spiritual exercises).

To read his silence as guilty is to take the most uncharitable view of his actions without regard for his character, ideals, or spirituality.

 

[therese1998]

I just don’t hold people’s agendas against them

Vigano wants Francis out. I don’t have enough evidence to say that, even if it were a “thing”, Francis should be “deposed”. I can wait until facts become clear.

I don’t see how to assume that what Vigano says is false.

How do you know the accusations against Jesus were false? He was silent both with Herod and with Pilate. Many of his disciples waited for Him to speak. He did not. Silence is neither guilt nor innocence.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

If you believe this, you don’t know Pope Francis well.

1. He hates gossip and innuendo. He always refuses to get involved in it and always advises that we do the same.
2. Pope Francis is not a knee jerk decision kind of guy. He always tries to be slow, deliberate, and consultative. If he speaks it will take time.
3. Pope Francis is Ignatian. When he is faced with crisis and hardship he always always retreats to prayerful silence and discernment (the spiritual exercises).

To read his silence as guilty is to take the most uncharitable view of his actions without regard for his character, ideals, or spirituality.

Read what I said. I was not interpreting his silence as guilt at all. I was saying that, IF he is guilty, I would think that his honor would be the thing keeping him silent. If he’s not guilty, all the things you say could be the explanations.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

How do you know the accusations against Jesus were false?

They weren’t false. He DID claim to be God, and that WAS an offense punishable by death. (The Jewish leaders did not have “contingency plans” for when people claimed to be God and were telling the truth!)

So if you have some explanation of how Vigano’s claims are all true, but Francis acted rightly, I’d love to hear it.

 

[JSAD]

Whatever comes out. Even the certified truth. It will still be spun to the whomever is reading. To their viewpoint. Nothing has changed since all these revelations have come out ( the pope hasn’t even commented on it properly ) and nothing much will.

Pray , pay and obey

 

[Leferdion]

This article in no way proves the Pope covered up anything. Concluding Pope Francis ‘did cover up’ McCarrick based on this article is unfair.
Why is nobody talking of a `cover up’ of McCarrick by Pope Benedict 16 or Pope John Paul II, seeing that the timeline of the accusations and sending of those letters to the Vatican corresponds to the period when both JPII and Benedict were popes?
I dont get it, am I missing out something here?

 

[exnihilo]

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.

You are wrong. This is significant evidence, though it doesn’t necessarily implicate the Holy Father. We have proof that the Vatican was informed of the specific abuse of seminarians by McCarrick. After this McCarrick continued as a bishop and cardinal in the Church.

This definitely serves as evidence in favor of Viganò’s testimony. It is evidence of his credibility. It is evidence that at least some people in the Vatican did know about McCarrick, even if his fellow bishops in the US claim to have no idea about his grave misdeeds.

So the question is was this information withheld from various popes? If so then there is a deep rot in the Vatican that must be rooted out. If however any pope did know then that pope allowed a monster to continue to exercise authority which is shameful.

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?

I don’t disagree. But if information that a homosexual bishop was abusing seminarians did not reach the pope then the organization is deeply corrupted and needs to be cleansed.

 

[exnihilo]

The pope is not a CEO racing to appease the board and the shareholders. We are all a bit too used to corporate public relations tactics. The church is not an NGO.

The pope shouldn’t be like that. The Church shouldn’t be like that. But that doesn’t mean the Church isn’t really like that. Anytime you have a human organization you have politics.

The Holy Father himself has spoken out against certain types of prelates. His apparent close friend and advisor Cardinal Cupich has even claimed people who don’t agree with the Pope are motivated by racism. That is a page straight out of the American CEO/politician playbook. Call your opponents racists to end discussion of the problem.

His deplorable acts with adult seminarians is a different matter. Who knew what and when is yet to be determined.

We know the Vatican was informed by at least 2000.

They were informed of accusations and rumors in 2000. By 2006 those rumors had yet to be investigated. We have no idea what happened after 2006.

If the Vatican doesn’t care enough to investigate the clearly well known truth of McCarick abusing seminarians over a six year time period we have a problem. Also, by 2006 it wasn’t just ‘rumor’. By 2006 the Diocese of Newark had made payments to two victims of McCarrick’s abuse. Anything after 2006 isn’t just an allegation. If the Vatican and Holy Father doesn’t know that a bishop was molesting seminarians even after his diocese makes a payoff then we have a serious problem.

 

[exnihilo]

I truly feel it will take a younger Pope to tackle this huge global problem in the
Catholic Church once and for all.

Excellent point. We need a King David. One who no one else would pick. One who isn’t part of the in group.

Francis was not Pope in 2000. By the time he got in office, he might have been told McCarrick had cleaned up his act.

McCarrick had cleaned up his act of a lifetime of homosexual sex? Maybe age alone caught up with him. Regardless a private life of prayer and penance for his last days seems pretty fitting for a man who abused laity and seminarians over a lifetime.

 

[13pollitos]

You make a good point. It doesn’t mean this pope shouldn’t start the process though. The first step is working on rebuilding the trust that was lost. The only way to do that is to communicate and create true transparency.

 

[PeterT]

This article in no way proves the Pope covered up anything. Concluding Pope Francis ‘did cover up’ McCarrick based on this article is unfair.
Why is nobody talking of a `cover up’ of McCarrick by Pope Benedict 16 or Pope John Paul II, seeing that the timeline of the accusations and sending of those letters to the Vatican corresponds to the period when both JPII and Benedict were popes?
I dont get it, am I missing out something here?

No you’re not.

The original poster’s claim makes no sense at all based on the article he cited. I’m a bit befuddled by his claim too.

 

[commenter]

The problem here is that if it becomes Vigano’s honor versus the Pope Francis’s honor without meaningful evidence the result may very likely be a schism…especially with conservative American Catholics. The truth likely won’t matter.

I really think Pope Francis is correct to remain silent on this.

You may be right that the pope’s best option is to remain silent. No matter what he says, no matter what documents he releases, 100 percent of people will be unsatisfied.

The problem is that in 2018, especially in America, there’s an insatiable demand by “enquiring minds” who are itching to reject. The Pope is probably measuring the likely practical value to any one of commenting, explaining documents ,- is there any value? - compared to possible harm.

You refer to conservative Catholics. But the secular Left media is coming after Francis, who they formerly applauded. The Catholic Left is either silent, ambiguous, or cautiously critical of the pope. The Left is victim-driven.