Pope Francis Must Resign: Archbishop Vigano

[OraLabora]

Saint John Paul II made McCarrick a Bishop, then Archbishop of Washington DC, and gave him a red hat.

If Benedict did censure McCarrick, why was it so secret that no one but Vigano apparently knew? If there was a censure, why was there absolutely no attempt to enforce it? How come not even gossip came from the Vatican about this alleged interdict of a Cardinal Archbishop? No rumors, nothing.

All very, very pertinent questions, which is why I smell a rat with Vigano’s letter. I also read the whole thing and there’s a lot of innuendo and personal interpretation of “attitudes”.

Regarding Cardinal Sean O’Malley , I would simply say that his latest statements on the McCarrick case are disconcerting, and have totally obscured his transparency and credibility.

What the heck is this supposed to mean?

Regarding Cupich , one cannot fail to note his ostentatious arrogance, and the insolence with which he denies the evidence that is now obvious to all: that 80% of the abuses found were committed against young adults by homosexuals who were in a relationship of authority over their victims.

OK we get that he doesn’t like Cupich, but can he stick to the facts? “Ostentatious arrogance” is not a fact, it’s a perception.

So colour me puzzled…

 

[bullish1]

We probably would not agree on the accuracy of Cupich’s reason for the priest abuse problem but I actually agree with your critique of Vigano’s language. He should have stuck to facts as the rest weakened his argument in my mind too.

 

[Hope1960]

It takes the following pope to judge if a pope before him is an anti-pope.

What, exactly is “an anti-pope”. Forgive my ignorance.

 

[bullish1]

What, exactly is “an anti-pope”

A Pope who was not canonically chosen by bishops. At different times in history there have been simultaneous Pope and Anti-Pope who claimed to be Pope. Once there were 3 I believe. One even became a saint.

 

[Thorolfr]

Aphelion:

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.

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.

And don’t forget Cardinal Law in Boston. According to the Wikipedia article on him:

Within weeks of his resignation, Law moved from Boston to Rome. When the state attorney general issued his report entitled Child Sexual Abuse in the Archdiocese of Boston (July 23, 2003), he severely criticized Law, mentioning that “the Archdiocese has shown an institutional reluctance to adequately address the problem and, in fact, made choices that allowed the abuse to continue,” but did not allege that Law had tried to evade investigation. He said that Cardinal Law had not broken any laws, because the law requiring abuse to be reported was not expanded to include priests until 2002.

Law was a member of the Congregations for the Oriental Churches, the Clergy, Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, Evangelisation of Peoples, Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, Catholic Education, Bishops, as well as the Pontifical Council for the Family. He held membership in all these congregations and of the council before resigning from the governance of the Archdiocese of Boston, and at that time was also a member of the Pontifical Council for Culture. He became even more influential in those Vatican congregations, and, being based in Rome, he could attend all their meetings, unlike cardinals based in other countries.

In May 2004, Pope John Paul II appointed Law to a post in Rome, as Archpriest of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore, a sinecure with only ceremonial duties. Some saw this an attempt to shield Law from potential criminal prosecution as his new position conveyed citizenship in Vatican City.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Francis_Law

 

[Joe_5859]

Vigano isn’t actually a Cardinal. He’s an archbishop.

Yes, it is increasingly concerning to me that he is levying so great an accusation against Pope Francis considering the evidence he has. I can far more understand his criticisms and accusations against several of the cardinals he mentions. Those seem much more credible. But his comments regarding Francis have the flimsiest foundation of everything he says.

Perhaps he has gone over it in his mind so many times that he simply sees no other explanation and he is gravely concerned for the Church. That still doesn’t mean he has judged the situation correctly, though.

 

[gracepoole]

Thanks – I’ve now edited.

 

[Canvas]

Cardinal Cupich has now weighed in. He believes native English speakers helped write the letter.

Pope Francis Long Knew of Cardinal’s Abuse and Must Resign, Archbishop Says (Published 2018)

Carlo Maria Viganò, once the Vatican’s top diplomat in the U.S., claims Francis was complicit in covering up sexual abuse by Cardinal Theodore McCarrick.

www.nytimes.com

Archbishop Viganò said that Benedict had already punished Cardinal McCarrick for his abuse of seminarians and priests. The archbishop writes that Benedict had banned the American cardinal from publicly celebrating Mass, from living in a seminary and from traveling to give lectures.

There is no public record of such a sanction, and the cardinal continued to celebrate Mass. And in 2012, Cardinal McCarrick joined bishops in the Vatican to sing happy birthday to Benedict as they presented him with a fresh strawberry-and-kiwi custard cake.

Cardinal Cupich said he was not aware of any restrictions that Pope Benedict put on Cardinal McCarrick, as Archbishop Viganò asserts.

“How can you have secret restrictions? What does that mean?” Cardinal Cupich said, adding that it would have been Archbishop Viganò’s duty as nuncio to inform the American bishops of the restrictions. “Why didn’t he tell us this?” he asked. “Why didn’t he enforce it?”

 

[Hope1960]

We’re the minority otherwise there wouldn’t be two weeks of endless freaking out over the “impending” collapse of the Church :man_shrugging:t2:

I don’t think the Church will collapse but just like the first scandal chased off a bunch of Catholics, I think many more will leave now, too.

I couldn’t tell if there were fewer people at Mass last night but I did notice that the priest who usually has a pretty decent line waiting for Confession had one or two people who went in, and none waiting in line.

 

[Mtdobbs]

This is the same Vigano in this article :

The Vatican envoy to the United States quashed an investigation into alleged homosexual activity on the part of Archbishop John Nienstedt and ordered a piece of evidence destroyed, according to an 11-page memo unsealed Wednesday afternoon.

In the memo, Fr. Dan Griffith, then-Delegate for Safe Environment for the St. Paul-Minneapolis archdiocese, stated that in April 2014 Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, apostolic nuncio to the U.S., ordered two auxiliary bishops to have a St. Paul law firm quickly wrap its investigation and later that month instructed them to destroy a letter they had sent Vigano pushing back on his request.

Memo: Vatican nuncio quashed sexual misconduct inquiry of Archbishop Nienstedt

Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano ordered two auxiliary bishops to have a law firm wrap up its investigation, and later instructed them to destroy evidence, per a memo unsealed Wednesday.

www.ncronline.org

I will wait until much more information comes out before I pass judgment on this issue.

 

[Hope1960]

This is somewhat old news, it has actually been improving.

The articles I read last night written last year regarding a priests’ gay sex orgies, drugs and the use of a car with Vatican plates as a way to avoid being pulled over by the police isn’t old news. Or at least not to me.

 

[SeriousQuestion]

A lot of change can happen in a year. It might be one of those isolated cases and this is a bit better than the child abuse cases.

 

[Amy1965]

What concerns me about Pope’s reaction to the letter is the same style of response when he seems to be backed in a corner…his non response.

"“I will not say one word on this. I think the statement speaks for itself and you have sufficient journalistic capacity to reach your own conclusions,”

Pope Francis also issued a non-response to the Cardinal’s dubia.

Cardinal Burke responds to Francis: We hand-delivered dubia letter to Pope’s residence - LifeSite

'There has never been a question about the fact that [the dubia] were presented to the Holy Father.'

www.lifesitenews.com

 

[pnewton]

What concerns me about Pope’s reaction to the letter is the same style of response when he seems to be backed in a corner…his non response.

“Backed into a corner” is just an opinion, a slanted one at that. It assumes that there is total truth in everything the media puts out, or everything that someone says about him, and it assumes there is a corner, that is, no good response.

Having read the letter, it really isn’t all that difficult to point out the flaws and the agenda, if the Pope wanted to join in on that type of dialogue.

 

[anon10271182]

“Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.”
1st Timothy: 4

 

[Amy1965]

I agree that my “backed in a corner” is slanted.

Regardless, this is a serious allegation by a high official in the Vatican that deserves a response.

Just as there is the need for Pope Francis to respond in a basically Yes/No question to the dubia from the 5 Cardinals - regading Amoris Laetitia - that seems to contain counter teaching on divorced and remarried.

 

[pnewton]

I do think there is truth in the letter that some homosexual clergy tend to stick together. However, this does not mean that AB Vigano, or the Pope knows who all of them are; nor does it mean the Pope is ignoring the problem. Just last year Vatican police arrested a priest inside Vatican City for child pornography. I remember the news was all about some “drug-fueled gay orgy.” No. It was one priest caught with child pornography.

One would really have to be out of the loop not to realize that Pope Francis is no fan of clerical pomp and excess. If it is not in his nature to tolerate clerics who ride in limos and have palaces, does anyone think he would tolerate clerics who think they deserve sexual playthings?

He has said the ban on homosexual seminaries must continue, re-affirmed the family, and spoken against homosexuality. He also has declined to be judgmental when pushed.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Pope Francis has replied

Pope 'won't say a word about it' after he's accused of ignoring abuse claims

The National Catholic Register and another conservative site, LifeSiteNews, posted the letter attributed to Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano on Sunday.

chicago.suntimes.com

 

[Amy1965]

My concern here is his apparent lack of response. With this cover up (by whom we don’t know for sure yet) there needs to be truth and transparency. If he doesn’t many faithful will leave the Church or the Church would become irrelevant - A Pope would be extremely concerned about that and clear this mess up.

 

[pnewton]

A Pope would be extremely concerned about that and clear this mess up.

We cannot read his heart as to what concerns him. As far as “clearing this mess up,” that assumes something can be said that would actually clear anything up. One thing is see consistently here at CAF, in the news, and in the church, too many listen to what they want to hear and filter everything through their own opinion. The Pope’s advice is sound. Read the letter, but read it critically, as an investigator, not a gullible consumer.

Maybe he will decide to address it, or allow someone else address it. As for now, Pope Francis acted on McCarrick a month before AB Vigano said anything, removing him from contact with others. If there needs to be something said, he should at least be given as long to respond as AB Vigano spent keeping these secrets.

There is one more consideration. AB Vigano’s letter is a recollection from events of several years past. Surely it must be considered that his perception, and his memory, may not be entirely accurate in all the details he attempts to recall. i do not think anyone’s would be and any age. That is just how our minds work.