Pope Francis and McCarrick: Where does the evidence lead?

[Jerzy]

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/com...s-and-mccarrick-where-does-the-evidence-lead/

 

[Ghosty1981]

I concur with this summary and its conclusions.

At this point I see more reason to believe Vigano’s account than to dismiss it, and I believe we deserve to see the documents opened up to the public.

In the face of the information as it currently stands, the Pope’s silence and general approach are utterly inadequate to put it mildly. These are not baseless claims, but serious ones with enough support to warrant response and investigation.

 

[OraLabora]

In light of the new information that Vigano now acknowledges that the sanctions “similar” to those imposed by Pope Francis were not in fact the same at all (private vs. canonical), I would say that this article’s connecting of the dots is incomplete and its conclusions irrelevant.

 

[gracepoole]

At this point I see more reason to believe Vigano’s account than to dismiss it, and I believe we deserve to see the documents opened up to the public.

Then let he who has leveled the charge provide the evidence.

 

[twf]

Let’s assume the Holy Father is completely innocent. It still seems pretty clear that senior Churchmen knew McCarrick was a predator abuser and yet did nothing. Isn’t that nearly as bad? How is anything short of an investigation not called for?

 

[Ghosty1981]

Then let he who has leveled the charge provide the evidence.

He has, as best he is able. He has given us the names and locations of those that can provide further evidence (and it’s worth noting that his statements have been corroborated publically by those who would know, except for Ratzinger who will not comment on the testimony). The supposed documents are at the Vatican and nunciature.

 

[Ghosty1981]

In light of the new information that Vigano now acknowledges that the sanctions “similar” to those imposed by Pope Francis were not in fact the same at all (private vs. canonical), I would say that this article’s connecting of the dots is incomplete and its conclusions irrelevant.

This has been addressed in another thread, but it is worth mentioning here: Vigano has not changed his testimony and has not said that the sanctions were actually not canonical. He said they were administered in a private way.