Letter confirms Vatican officials knew of McCarrick allegations in 2000

  • Thread starter Thread starter AZ42
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Prodigal_Son said:
So if you have some explanation of how Vigano’s claims are all true, but Francis acted rightly, I’d love to hear it.
Click to expand...
To do so would be…wait…wait…wait…SPECULATION. And that’s exactly what is NOT needed. I don’t have a problem with waiting.
 
pnewton said:
Those are two different things. If you do not get that, then you will misunderstand how the law works. Forcing yourself on anyone is illegal. It is sexual assault. However coercion is not, except in some specific circumstances, like a policeman coercing a suspect to have sex.
Click to expand...
You are nuancing the English language.

co·er·cion

NOUN
  1. the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
Coercing someone to do something immoral is wrong! If you think you hold a persuasive argument for a bunch of Catholics by telling us it is not illegal, dream on. I can’t even describe my disdain for a Cardinal who has done the things that McCarrick has done. The best thing he can do for his soul and the souls of others would be to repent, reconcile his sins, and then live out the sanctions imposed on him.
 
Everyone just needs to remember that the pope is only human and humans make mistakes sometimes
 
philipl said:
Statue of limitations can be removed and they should be.
Click to expand...
THAT is something I could not possibly agree with. Changing statutes of limitations retroactively is a terrible abuse of the rule of law.
 
therese1998 said:
To do so would be…wait…wait…wait…SPECULATION. And that’s exactly what is NOT needed. I don’t have a problem with waiting.
Click to expand...
We haven’t been told an explanation is coming (in fact, quite the opposite). So do you have a problem with these accusations never being denied?
 
Last edited:
Prodigal_Son said:
We haven’t been told an explanation is coming (in fact, quite the opposite). So do you have a problem with these accusations never being denied?
Click to expand...
I’m not in a hurry. As far as NEVER being addressed, not sure. I’ll tell you when and if I think too much time has passed. Until then, I’ll recognize that the world of the Vatican, as the world in general, is one of politics and “he said, she said”.
 
pnewton said:
Exactly. I remember that and even posted that it was a stupid title. But I would think that before jumping here, people would have actually read the article, where it shows that in 2006 Archbishop Sandri was inquiring into accusations made against McCarrick. That is all this article says.
Click to expand...
I see you subscribe to the idea that if you repeat something often enough, no matter that it has no factual basis, people will believe it. Not buying it though. That is most definitely not all the article says. The article says that the Vatican letter references the letter from Fr Ramsey in which he reported the sexual misconduct of McCarrick. The Vatican would have had to receive it to reference it. You may chose to disbelieve Fr Ramsey if you want. Perhaps a better tactic would be to try and discredit him than to mischaracterize the contents of the article.
 
If they knew in 2000, then we better include Benedict and JPII 😉
 
pnewton said:
608b7856eaa5b82600e13e7666fbf5bba4d56c45.png
MarlboroMan:
Loading…
Click to expand...
Are you going to give @MarlboroMan a penance to do as well?
Click to expand...
 
pnewton said:
. However coercion is not, except in some specific circumstances, like a policeman coercing a suspect to have sex.
Click to expand...
Yes it is, I know several men in that took advantage of a subordinated that have served jail time in the military. Also there are several cases where the statue of limitation have been removed. The church leaders covered up these crimes and are still actively doing so. This also is a crime. Once these records are forced from those Bishops you will see many of them going to jail. That is where they belong.

 
Last edited:
bullish1 said:
You are nuancing the English language.

co·er·cion

NOUN
  1. the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats .
Coercing someone to do something immoral is wrong!
Click to expand...
If by nuancing the English language you mean I am not illiterate and try and use it precisely, then I am guilty as charged. Of course coercing someone to do something wrong is immoral. Of course the action of Cardinal McCarrick are reprehensible.

Let the straw man be built again and again here.
 
bullish1 said:
Perhaps a better tactic would be to try and discredit him than to mischaracterize the contents of the article.
Click to expand...
It is there to be read. It is interesting the title of this thread had to be revised once already. When I started complaining about it the first time, it mentioned Pope Francis. Perhaps that is what is confusing.
bullish1 said:
I see you subscribe to the idea that if you repeat something often enough, no matter that it has no factual basis, people will believe it
Click to expand...
Of course I do not believe that. You really should stop all this guessing about the way other people think.
 
Last edited:
The article mentions a response by an Archbishop. The idea of “The Vatican” is good for most conversations, but in an investigation greater precision is needed. Now do I think Pope Benedict knew something? Probably. It sure seems like it. However, this letter does nothing to indicate if there were actual sanctions, what exactly Pope Benedict knew (or St. John Paul).

It has nothing to do with Pope Francis.
 
This is a direct quote from the article:

Rape​

In the most egregious incidents of sexual harassment—sexual assaults—the harasser is also a rapist and the assault may result in a criminal charge of rape against the assailant and a sexual harassment lawsuit against the assailant’s employer.

I have been banned for two weeks because I pointed out these priest were guilty of rape.
 
pnewton said:
If by nuancing the English language you mean I am not illiterate and try and use it precisely, then I am guilty as charged. Of course coercing someone to do something wrong is immoral. Of course the action of Cardinal McCarrick are reprehensible.
Click to expand...
No, that is not what I meant. You should look it up the definition I guess.
pnewton said:
Let the straw man be built again and again here.
Click to expand...
I find that most of the time, people accuse others of what they themselves are. Does your constant use of “Straw man” indicate that of you?

straw man

NOUN
  1. an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent’s real argument.
  2. a person regarded as having no substance or integrity.
Name calling usually gets you nowhere. Where is the charity that you are demanding of others?
 
Last edited:
philipl said:
This is a direct quote from the article:
Click to expand...
More straw. No one is denying rape is criminal.
bullish1 said:
Yes, most of the time, as evidenced by your own link!
Click to expand...
Okay, if that is the way you read it. However, in criminal law, threats are not a threat against the job. I am confident most can understand that coercion is not listed in the article as one of the crimes. Crimes include:
Rape
Assault
Illegal restraint/false imprisonment
Child pornography

and in some states:
anti-bullying
stalking (what constitutes this varies from state to state)
bullish1 said:
I find that most of the time, people accuse others of what they themselves are. Does your constant use of “Straw man” indicate that of you?
Click to expand...
No. It is not insult to point out a fault in an argument. It is a fault when I point out that sexual harassment is not always a crime, as in the case where employees, or other adults, or coerced into sex because of the power structure. Then, when another post says, “Rape is a crime,” it is, by definition, a straw man argument.

You can pull a “bait and switch” if you want, but you will not fool me, nor many others. I was using the primary definition of the word, as context clearly shows. It is still here to be read. I have actually never heard of that second definition, nor have I ever seen it used in the hundreds of times others have used it here.

I will be careful of context though, in the future, now that I am aware that this is one of the definitions.
 
I would like to add that it is possible, though not necessary or evidenced as of yet, that there was a criminal element to the actions of McCarrick with the seminarians. I have no doubt that if this is possible there would have been, or will be, an indictment, considering the scrutiny given the case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top