Pope Francis, Innocent until proven guilty?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnjacob2004
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

johnjacob2004

Guest
Pope Francis is innocent until proven guilty. We can make all the accusations we want about him.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think things in the Church would have gotten to the state they are, if the current Pope were not tacitly supporting it. He has been well aware of the situation. That is the point why so many clergy are now fed up.

A recent sermon on this point by Fr. Robert Altier expounds well on this point.
 
I’m not drawing any conclusions yet, but it’s not looking good. Actions speak louder than words, or in his case: lack of action speaks louder than lack of words.
 
As I understand it, since as a head of state he can’t be tried in a criminal court that applies the legal doctrine of placing the burden of proof on the prosecution, the first statement has no application. Before God he is either innocent or guilty, whether it is proven to people on this earth or not–there is no presumption before God.

We also cannot make any accusations we want. We can only make accusations we have a good faith belief are true (ie calumny is a sin) and we have a good faith belief are necessary to serve some good (ie detraction is a sin).
 
Agreed. I miss him more with each passing year. Although I think his resignation was perhaps an example to others that he, too, is also a bishop and can resign just like others.

Personally I think he should follow Pope Benedict’s example, but overall I agree with what you are saying.
 
Right. Bishops are called to be bishops for life. And traditionally, bishops reign for life. It was only in recent decades, I believe under Pope St John Paul II (or maybe Blessed Paul VI?) that bishops have been asked to submit their resignation at 75. The Pope is a bishop. A special bishop, but not something more or different than a bishop.
 
Vatican II “earnestly requested” that bishops less capable of fulfilling their duties due to age (it did not provide a particular age) offer their resignation on their own accord or “upon the invitation of the competent authority.” (Christus Dominus 21). Paul VI’s implementation of this was to mandate they offer their resignation at 75. He later laid down similar mandates on curial officials and Cardinals, as well as barring those 80 or over from conclaves.

The reasoning Vatican II gave was that the office of bishop was “so important and weighty.” Given that reasoning, it seems this earnest request would apply even more so to the bishop of Rome.
 
Last edited:
I have a question regarding the other bishops and priests who xovered up.

Many people say they should resign. But I don’t know, I feel sexual abuse cover up is too egregious for a person to simply resign. I mean shouls not the enablers be in jail? If it were an ordinary individual who covered up and was found out, I would think he wouls be behind bars by now.
 
It is my very limited (and possibly wrong) understanding that a statute of limitations prevents it in most of these cases.
 
Last edited:
If one does not like the current Pope, one can always pray to God to change him, either by giving him a burning-bush experience that sets him on the right track (if, indeed, he is currently on the wrong track), or by removing him and putting someone else in his place.

D
 
Yes, they remain bishops, ontologically speaking, and generally continue to minister as health allows. What I meant is that they abdicate their seat as ordinary of a particular diocese. Likewise the Pope remains a bishop if he abdicates, but ceases to be the Bishop of Rome with the special primacy that seat entails.
 
It can’t possibly be just the current pope, though. These are cases going back decades, and the prelates involved in the cover-up have been in office since then. If Pope Francis knew, he should go down. But this isn’t some unique problem with Francis’ papacy. Pope Benedict, Pope St. John Paul II, and their predecessors are just as likely to have known and done nothing. Pope Francis has the advantage of presiding over a Church in which there are tighter controls on this sort of thing happening from now on; the main issue now seems to be that most of the bishops and cardinals (and yes, possibly even popes) who knew and didn’t act have not been exposed and punished.
 
“Innocent until proven guilty” is a judicial concept. Catholics who are losing faith in Francis aren’t “trying” him or performing any judicial action. They are disappointed, and they want to be proven wrong in their suspicions. If Francis remains silent, they will not be proven wrong.
 
In a court of law. Which if there is enough evidence against him, extradite him and place him on trial. Would you expect anything less of a cop, a fireman, a Politican. a teacher?
 
I’m not worried. God will have happen what needs to happen as far as Pope Francis goes. Perhaps he will be exonerated and live to be 115. Or maybe he will “take one for the team” to get the ball rolling to clean up this mess.
 
Last edited:
Does that justify such a mystifying and vague response to the allegations?
 
They forced his hand by freezing bank accounts in the vatican when he tried to caution errant cardinals
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top