T
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Pope Breaks Silence on McCarrick: ‘I Knew Nothing, Nothing, Nothing’
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
H
Hoosier-Daddy
Guest
You cannot believe both the Pope and Vigano. Vigano says the Pope is lying. He says that the Pope specifically asked him and he told the Pope personally.
O
o_mlly
Guest
? Ask yourself, WHY is that issue “open” for you?WHY is that issue “open” for you?
That’s why I am withholding any final conclusions on this.
One either withholds judgement or not. I have stated my position. Yours, however, is unclear.You seem to think the Pope is being less than truthful here.
Corrective action always and only follows from control – knowledge of wrongdoing. To the extent that the pope does not know what is going on in 5,000+ dioceses, his powers of corrective action will not be exercised.He can transfer them to a titualar bishoprick (proverbial bishop of “Timbucktu”) and retire them to a monostary for a life of prayer and penance.
T
twf
Guest
To be fair, while there are about 5000 Catholic Bishops, only about half of that number are ordinaries of a Diocese (or equivalent). The other half are either auxiliary bishops, nuncios, Curia officials, or retired. But your point is valid. I believe Pope Francis, with his recent document on dealing with abuse, has given the metropolitan archbishops increased responsibility for supervising their brother bishops in this regard. I believe the centralization of power in Rome, over the centuries, at the expense of the ancient local primacy of the metropolitans and regional/national synods, was in many ways a mistake.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Maybe I’m weird, but this whole finger-pointing issue is completely moot to me. McCarrick has been publicly disgraced and put out to pasture permanently, it’s time to move on in my opinion.
T
tafan2
Guest
You are likely right. It is possible that it was a much more memorable event for Vigano than the Holy Father. But being told such a high level cardinal has been placed under disciplinary actions should be memorable to the Holy Father. I have a hard time dismissing any of Vigano’s statements about actual events, he may have gone too far with some of his comments about various Bshops and Cardinals in his letter, but it seems that more and more of his letter is being proven true. I don’t know anything that is proven as false.
Assuming the letter is true, this whole thing could have been taken care of immediately after the letter. The Pope could have issued a statement saying he made a mistake due to conflicting advice (which I am sure he had others vouching for McCarrick), and in the same statement stated he was not going to resign and denounced that part of Vigano’s letter. It would have caused quite a stir, but it is effectively what he eventually did in the Chilean situation, although took him 3 or 4 months too long.
Assuming the letter is true, this whole thing could have been taken care of immediately after the letter. The Pope could have issued a statement saying he made a mistake due to conflicting advice (which I am sure he had others vouching for McCarrick), and in the same statement stated he was not going to resign and denounced that part of Vigano’s letter. It would have caused quite a stir, but it is effectively what he eventually did in the Chilean situation, although took him 3 or 4 months too long.
T
tafan2
Guest
Not to me. It is readily apparent that the Church has a problem in seminaries in several countries. This issue has not been address to any level that is close to satisfactory. This problem directly involves Bishops and other people responsible for seminary formation. The McCarrick case has become, for better or worse, the central point of the scandal. It cannot be addressed unless the Church determines who all has been involved, who all has allowed the problem to fester. We should not move on.
H
Hoosier-Daddy
Guest
It isn’t moot if say the Pope knew, had been informed, lifted sanctions and elevated his status as advisor…
It isn’t moot if one wants to buy the narrative that the church has this all under control now and would never cover something up or be inactive on information. It isn’t moot if the Church is trying to convince its members that it was in the past and it is capable of policing itself. It isn’t moot if the abuse summit was not just words… in fact I cant think of a situation in which this would be moot…
It isn’t moot if one wants to buy the narrative that the church has this all under control now and would never cover something up or be inactive on information. It isn’t moot if the Church is trying to convince its members that it was in the past and it is capable of policing itself. It isn’t moot if the abuse summit was not just words… in fact I cant think of a situation in which this would be moot…
H
Hoosier-Daddy
Guest
If vigano is 100 percent truthful he could not ever go too far. If he is partially truthful then you may be right…
T
tafan2
Guest
well he made some statements against certain prelates that were speculation , eg Cardinal Sodano was behind McCarricks appointment to Washington, and various Cardinals being part of the “homosexual current”. He may be 100% truthful, ie he is not lying, but he could still be wrong on some of these claims.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Hoosier-Daddy . . . .
I said for now, I am waiting to see what comes up before I make any definitive statements here.
And that’s what I have to do at this point.
Yes but I did not say both “the Pope and Vigano” are being truthful here.You cannot believe both the Pope and Vigano.
I said for now, I am waiting to see what comes up before I make any definitive statements here.
And that’s what I have to do at this point.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Tis_Bearself . . .
1 - McCarrick had a lot of power. There are those that he may have placed in positions of influence and power, for illicit reasons.
The Church in protecting the faithful, will either root this out, or God will use secular authorities to do so. At least that is my opinion.
2 - McCarrick has information that is important to have. This should be at least somewhat transparent unless public knowledge of such information hinders an investigation. If this is the case, a speedy investigation should be undertaken THEN the transparency that Pope Francis has called needs to materialize.
3 - McCarrick was “put out to pasture” once before, and that was not adequate. He is untrustworthy. He belongs in jail.
4 - McCarrick was probably a victim himself and that should be transparently addressed too for the same reasons (to stop the homosexual predator culture that has taken root at least to some extent.
WHY has this occurred? More questions need to be addressed to answer all the dimensions.
The McCarrick “pedigree” should be investigated–both ways–those responsible
for putting him in such power,
and those he helped place in such lofty positions within the Church).
And I would second that except for a few items.McCarrick has been publicly disgraced and put out to pasture permanently, it’s time to move on in my opinion.
1 - McCarrick had a lot of power. There are those that he may have placed in positions of influence and power, for illicit reasons.
The Church in protecting the faithful, will either root this out, or God will use secular authorities to do so. At least that is my opinion.
2 - McCarrick has information that is important to have. This should be at least somewhat transparent unless public knowledge of such information hinders an investigation. If this is the case, a speedy investigation should be undertaken THEN the transparency that Pope Francis has called needs to materialize.
3 - McCarrick was “put out to pasture” once before, and that was not adequate. He is untrustworthy. He belongs in jail.
4 - McCarrick was probably a victim himself and that should be transparently addressed too for the same reasons (to stop the homosexual predator culture that has taken root at least to some extent.
WHY has this occurred? More questions need to be addressed to answer all the dimensions.
The McCarrick “pedigree” should be investigated–both ways–those responsible
for putting him in such power,
and those he helped place in such lofty positions within the Church).
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
o_mlly . . .
There are factors not addressed and I don’t want to be on the wrong side of publicly indicting a Pope given unaddressed factors. (I need to maintain the humility to see that I COULD be wrong here. This is no small item.)
For me to even state them in a platform like this would not be apprppriate.
At least for me.
At least yet.
More will be coming.
In the meantime publicly, I am just going to try to believe everybody. Even if I can’t harmonize everything said right now (I can harmonize it all, but even if I couldn’t), I am not ready to take a stand on this issue (publicly) yet.
I’ll just continue putting up related stories and each time this is done, more people will organically come to correct conclusions.
It is unclear on purpose.One either withholds judgement or not. I have stated my position. Yours, however, is unclear.
There are factors not addressed and I don’t want to be on the wrong side of publicly indicting a Pope given unaddressed factors. (I need to maintain the humility to see that I COULD be wrong here. This is no small item.)
For me to even state them in a platform like this would not be apprppriate.
At least for me.
At least yet.
More will be coming.
In the meantime publicly, I am just going to try to believe everybody. Even if I can’t harmonize everything said right now (I can harmonize it all, but even if I couldn’t), I am not ready to take a stand on this issue (publicly) yet.
I’ll just continue putting up related stories and each time this is done, more people will organically come to correct conclusions.
Last edited:
A
abucs
Guest
I think the pope supported a no tolerance policy with high ranking clergy who knew of ‘misbehaviour’ of other clergy but said nothing and let it continue.Maybe I’m weird, but this whole finger-pointing issue is completely moot to me. McCarrick has been publicly disgraced and put out to pasture permanently, it’s time to move on in my opinion.
If the pope did know, that puts him in an awkward spot. Either the policy also applies to him and he should step down or it doesn’t and there is a clear double standard in the policy when it comes to himself.
Of course the other alternative is that pope Francis didn’t know.
I have my thoughts on the matter but they are not informed and so like Cathoholic it’s better to stay quiet.
Last edited:
C
commenter
Guest
The allegation that McCarrick nominated certain Bishops, who are now cardinals, needs to be addressed. If true, was it based only in his opinion that they were the best qualified, or was there a “network” involved. What did they know about McCarrick?
They are innocent until proven guilty, but if there is a continuation of the Silence, I think the next pope may ask for their resignation for the good of the Church.
Pope Francis likely is getting blamed for actions of other persons. But moving forward, he has weakened Church leadership by removing everyone who disagrees with him. Thus he has insulated himself from useful information that sometimes comes from conservatives.
His two predecessors retained at least some people in high positions who had different views from the pope, and from each other. Now, there’s an Us Against Them atmosphere.
They are innocent until proven guilty, but if there is a continuation of the Silence, I think the next pope may ask for their resignation for the good of the Church.
Pope Francis likely is getting blamed for actions of other persons. But moving forward, he has weakened Church leadership by removing everyone who disagrees with him. Thus he has insulated himself from useful information that sometimes comes from conservatives.
His two predecessors retained at least some people in high positions who had different views from the pope, and from each other. Now, there’s an Us Against Them atmosphere.
Last edited:
T
twf
Guest
This is a good point. St JPII and +Benedict appointed “progressives” and conservatives alike to high office, to the dismay of “conservatives” and traditionalists. +Francis seems to favour “progressives”. +Mueller and +Burke have both been retired long before normal retirement age. Yet to be fair +Sarah still holds his post.
Last edited:
W
Weserthy
Guest
I think Cardinal Sarah’s five year term is up this year so he’s probably going to be out the door soon.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Weserthy . . .
And that will probably only serve to further the “homogenization” of advice the Pope receives as per @commenter . . .
In this case though, I think this “homogenization” has not served the Pope and the Church well, but that’s just my opinion.
You are probably correct Weserthy.I think Cardinal Sarah’s five year term is up this year so he’s probably going to be out the door soon.
And that will probably only serve to further the “homogenization” of advice the Pope receives as per @commenter . . .
I think the “homogenization” itself can be good or bad per se.But moving forward, he has weakened Church leadership by removing everyone who disagrees with him. Thus he has insulated himself from useful information that sometimes comes from conservatives.
In this case though, I think this “homogenization” has not served the Pope and the Church well, but that’s just my opinion.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Hoosier-Daddy . . .
Do you have a link for that by the way? I’m going to file that article if you do.
It is still there in the Vatican News article though.
I agree. The optics at least are not reassuring.According to the New York post. The nothing nothing nothing part hS been replaced by the Vatican with " I dont remember" yikes! That doesnt look good.
Do you have a link for that by the way? I’m going to file that article if you do.
It is still there in the Vatican News article though.
De McCarrick yo no sabía nada, obviamente, nada, nada. Lo dije varias veces eso, que yo no sabía, ni idea. Y que cuando . . .
“About McCarrick I knew nothing, obviously, nothing, nothing,” the pope told Mexican reporter Valentina Alazraki in a lengthy interview released Tuesday by Vatican News.
Last edited:
J
johnnykins
Guest
Sorry, but with the multitude of outright lies, prevarications and uses of mental reservation which we have been treated to over these decades, I no longer trust any cleric I do not personally know - from a deacon right on up to Pope.
They have squandered any trust they once had in anything touching the scandal. For now, “I’m from Missouri - Show me!”
They have squandered any trust they once had in anything touching the scandal. For now, “I’m from Missouri - Show me!”
- Status
- Not open for further replies.