E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Who cares if he has ulterior motives? That’s not the point. The point is: is he telling the truth? Why would a 78-year-old archbishop lie? He’s not covering up, he’s uncovering.
Last edited:
- Status
J
JMM1957
Guest
Why in the world are you jumping to conclusions about any of this at this point?
J
JMM1957
Guest
Again, how do you know for certain his statement is the whole truth? Of course we all want to know if he is telling the truth. And seriously, 78 yr. old archbishops have no reason to lie about anything?
R
rcwitness
Guest
Yes! This much i definitely agree with.
@Canvas’ post #238 has an interesting article offering the other side of the story.
@Canvas’ post #238 has an interesting article offering the other side of the story.
G
gracepoole
Guest
McCarrick left office in 2006.
K
KJW5551
Guest
Wow that’s wholly unfair to thr 95% of amazing dedicated priests in the U.S. who had nothing to do with any of this. You do realize the U.S. is the fourth largest Catholic country in the world, with thousands of priests and hundreds of bishops that have done nothing wrong? I agree that guilty bishops have to go, but blanket statements like this sure do not help things.
J
JMM1957
Guest
I think that is being a little harsh. A den of vipers has nothing good in it. The U.S. Church is full of very good people, sure there are some bad apples along with them for sure.
G
gracepoole
Guest
Why does he himself have a history of covering up abuse?JMM1957:
Who cares if he has ulterior motives? That’s not the point. The point is: is he telling the truth? Why would a 78-year-old archbishop lie? He’s not covering up, he’s uncovering.
A
Aphelion
Guest
Sorry; I was being hyperbolic. I’m talking about the senior leadership. I’m just not going to give anyone the benefit of the doubt based on whether I agree with them.
G
gracepoole
Guest
Even though we don’t even know if it’s accurate??
J
JMM1957
Guest
Who are you talking about?
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
So what’s his motivation? Does he want to be elected Pope? No. Is he denying his own sexual scandals? No. Is he some super-secret secret agent sent by Satan to destroy the Church? No–unless you have serious mental issues. So…why would he lie? Why would “He must be lying” be the default position? Do we need to go down the whole list of whistle blowers? How many lied? None?
And as to the issue of “why now,” I think that’s easy. Before this Francis has issued the odd statement here and there. But after the Pennsylvania grand jury report, he issued a major letter. He issued another one a week later. His whole trip to Ireland centred around abuse. The McCarrick story broke a couple weeks ago. So why now? Because the issue became a major front-page story. The same reason the “Time’s Up” movement broke–why then? Because of Cosby and Weinstein. Some incident sets off these things.
G
gracepoole
Guest
Vigano. Read The NY Times piece.
Last edited:
A
Aphelion
Guest
Why does anyone lie? It’s politics. Yes, there are people who genuinely want to do the right thing, but there also people using this crisis to settle political scores and get rid of political opponents. Personally, I think there are guilty bishops across the political spectrum. Vigano might be telling the truth, but I think we should all be skeptical of accusations made by senior leaders against other senior leaders.
J
JMM1957
Guest
I have no idea what his motivation is, and I’m certainly not going to take a firm position one way or the other until more credible information comes forward from other witnesses, etc. that substantiates the archbishops statement about the matter. I have no doubt that we won’t have to wait too long.
A
Aphelion
Guest
We already know that McCarrick was out and about (including in the Vatican, in Benedict’s presence) while these sanctions were supposedly in effect. So, even if there were sanctions, they certainly weren’t being enforced.
A
anikins
Guest
The fact that there are people out there who legitimately believe that Pope Francis will resign is laughable.
He will be pope until his death, y’all.
He will be pope until his death, y’all.
O
OraLabora
Guest
That begs the question, “why didn’t Benedict act”, if he sanctioned him and could observe the sanctions being ignored?
So: Benedict imposed but allegedly ignored the imposition of sanctions; Francis rolled back the sanctions, but re-imposed them when it got too embarrassing. And John Paul II… saint John Paul II, defended Maciel until the bitter end, not wanting to believe the mounting evidence (it was Benedict that finally took action on that case).
Nobody is going to come out of this smelling like a rose garden.
Maybe, maybe not. Benedict set, or rather revived a very old, precedent.
Last edited:
T
tafan2
Guest
In this case it might not be imposeible. A man might tell a lie, but rarely does he do so by writing an eleven page report with lots of names and details. Yes, there might be exaggerations or even lies, but he details a lot of events. Much of it can be collaborated.
One small bit, the NCR included the following in their article:
"The Register has independently confirmed that the allegations against McCarrick were certainly known to Benedict, and the Pope Emeritus remembers instructing Cardinal Bertone to impose measures but cannot recall their exact nature. "
I expect there are already many reporters working on the details.
One small bit, the NCR included the following in their article:
"The Register has independently confirmed that the allegations against McCarrick were certainly known to Benedict, and the Pope Emeritus remembers instructing Cardinal Bertone to impose measures but cannot recall their exact nature. "
I expect there are already many reporters working on the details.
Last edited:
J
JMM1957
Guest
Is that wishful thinking?
- Status