Pope Francis Must Resign: Archbishop Vigano

[phil19034]

13pollitos:

Now is time to pray and seek the path of God. It may very well be Pope Francis is innocent although I’m not very hopeful at this point honestly. You all are right. Throughout history we have had some very bad popes. Something more to ponder and pray about

Pope Francis could be guilty of very grave sins if these allegations are true. But that’s still no reason for him to resign or abdicate. If he is guilty, he must repent, confess and then he should do penance commensurate for the sins he had committed. Our Lord will forgive anyone, including a Pope, who is truly repentant about any sins a person chose to commit.

And if our Lord is willing to forgive Pope Francis, so should we. Everyone can be redeemed, even a Pope who might have fallen into grave sin.

Forgiveness doesn’t mean that he can’t resign. If these allegations are true, then the Pope should resign, and all Cardinals he appointed should have their red hats removed.

 

[phil19034]

The 11 page letter states that the Cardinal Sec of State didn’t enforce Pope Benedict’s ruling. Perhaps this was part of the reason Benedict resigned?

 

[MapleLeaf1]

Not sure what to make of all this. The last thing I’ll say is it exposes a need for a protocol for investigating cases involving the Pope. Currently there doesn’t seem to be any recourse.

 

[Amy1965]

No one can deny that church officials covered up or knew about McCarrick - whether Vigano has the correct information or lied -this needs to be addressed and commented quickly. So far I haven’t heard anything from Pope Francis regarding this.

 

[Hope1960]

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.

Pope Francis has always been willing to talk about all subjects but now he refuses to say anything.

 

[exnihilo]

From that article

Francis said the 11-page text by Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, which reads in part like a homophobic attack on Francis and his allies, “speaks for itself” and that he wouldn’t comment on it.

Why would the supposedly non biased journalists characterize the letter as a ‘homophobic attack’? I read the letter and don’t recall any homophobia. The letter does call out the problem of homosexual priests. Apparently that is homophobia.

Read the letter, but read it critically, as an investigator, not a gullible consumer.

I did, but it was hard to follow. I think it suffers from translation difficulties. You really would have to very carefully examine it to make sense of it.

whether Vigano has the correct information or lied -this needs to be addressed

I agree. Because either way one or more high ranking bishops (one the highest) has done something very bad. If this isn’t true then the accuser needs to be refuted and punished publicly. The Church is suffering a serious credibility problem one way or the other. It doesn’t solve that by not resolving who is the bad guy here.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Simply means he won’t comment on the letter.
And Pope Francis trusts journalists to judge for themselves.

Obviously Pope Francis is not getting into a public debate or slanging match. So what don’t we know about what’s going on between these parties.

Very wise man. Trial by media never turns out well and leads to panic and alarm, we have witnessed that here with people saying this will lead to leaving the church. Then we read Wikipedia entries disparaging the ex nuncio. Who knows what elements are at play here

 

[pnewton]

. So far I haven’t heard anything from Pope Francis regarding this.

You haven’t? He addressed Cardinal McCarrick at the end of July by suspending him from all public appearances, and activities, assigning him to private penance. That was action on his part, not covering up. Whereas with AB Vigano, he says he knows all these facts from the past decade and more, and is saying something a month after Pope Francis acted. It is he who did less, knew more, and said less. “Somebody knew something” is not actionable by itself. Whether more needs to happen would depend on what is known, and when it is known.

 

[pnewton]

If these allegations are true, then the Pope should resign, and all Cardinals he appointed should have their red hats removed.

Someone else does not know how the Catholic Church works. The Pope is a position for life. Pope Benedict’s resignation (he said for health) is an aberration. Pope’s do not resign with every wind of politics or media outrage. The Cardinals who are appointed are not a cabinet that go out with the Pope. Even if the Pope made a stupid decision, or a foolish move, he does not resign. If every allegation was true, though as vague as they are, I do not even know what that means, he does not resign.

Sheesh. The more I read hear the more I see the wisdom in refusing to bow to those who can’t get the Western model of politics out of their head. There is no doubt in my mind, seeing those who call for his resignation and the past posts, past politics, that the calls for resignation are more to do with who the Pope is than anything he has done. It is not coincidence that people like Michael Voris has called for his resignation, and Cardinal Burke has been suggested as the man for the papacy.

This is exactly why the Pope is pope for life. If you don’t get that, you don’t get the Catholic Church.

 

[pnewton]

It is time for Catholic to put aside their foolishness and show a little fortitude. God’s ways are not Man’s ways, and he did not set up His body to operate like the Deist, Humanist Founding Fathers set up the United States. The papacy is not subject to what ever clergy can cry or lie the loudest or make the news the most. It is not subject to whatever politically correct wind happens to rile the ignorant masses. It is subject to God alone. The only petition for his removal from us, if we must, should be to God. The only request for his resignation, should have been to him, not the media.

 

[abucs]

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.

Yes I have to be honest here and say I do not like this. I also don’t like the apparent ‘homophobia’ labelled comment. It smacks of what I consider Leftist elitism and name shaming in accordance with pc ideology which is a huge mistake.

I am not a fan of pope Francis mainly because he seems to have chosen to be too close to a secular ideology which I consider to have waged war on the church over the last 70 years.

That being said he is the pope. If he said these allegations are untrue I would believe him. If he said that he made a mistake I would accept that and wish to give him the benefit of any doubt.

I do not like this ‘I will not respond’ ‘you can work it out for yourself’ and ‘he is a homophobe’ reaction.

It is not my place to try and put pressure on pope Francis but I will say I am disappointed that he did not take up his right of reply.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I think the Pope’s response makes perfect sense given that this came kind of out of the blue, when he was in the middle of dealing with another large matter (the World Meeting of Families). And I find the timing very suspicious. If this were so important, why didn’t it hit the papers right on the heels of the initial McCarrick news story like every other big reveal about McCarrick? Or even earlier, like years ago?

The Pope will take some time, and if a further response is deemed necessary, he will respond later. But he won’t be forced into a quickie response. And given that he often has issues with saying the wrong thing/ speaking withou thinking/ getting mis-translated or misunderstood/ etc, it’s even more understandable that he would stay quiet for now.

Of course, some people aren’t going to like it, but whatever he does, some people aren’t going to like it.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

Your response is no more sensible than those who assume Pope Francis is 100% guilty.

You dont know either, and people are discussing a hypothetical in this topic.

 

[thistle]

Your response is no more sensible than those who assume Pope Francis is 100% guilty.

You dont know either, and people are discussing a hypothetical in this topic.

I gave my opinion which I am entitled to do. The Pope must always be accorded respect and believed.
My response makes more sense than the gullible who immediately assume allegations against the Pope are true.
That should be the position of all faithful Catholics.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

You admit that’s your opinion. Great.

You post would be meaningful if it was everyone’s opinion.

I don’t assume guilt at all, especially when the Holy Father is concerned, but needing an explanation is hardly unreasonable.

 

[bullish1]

I don’t assume guilt at all, especially when the Holy Father is concerned, but needing an explanation is hardly unreasonable.

Very few here are assuming any guilt on the part of the Pope. We do want answers and especially we want his answer. Many are not happy with the direction of the Pope’s changes and many are not satisfied with the inaction when it comes to incorporating transparency into the process of uncovering priest abuse coverups.

The Pope did get ambushed with this while he was out of the country and is entitled to some time to investigate and give a prepared response. Unfortunately, I think we have to accept the idea that the Pope may never give us an answer. He has yet to answer any of the 5 simple, yes or no, questions of the Dubya. Those answers will go a long way toward helping us better understand what was meant and what is coming from AL.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

I agree, and don’t blame the Pope for taking time to answer appropriately. One of the things he has be criticized for is his off-the-cuff answers that confuse people, or at times, mislead. This is not a question for that.

 

[tafan2]

I agree he should have declined to answer yesterday, but he should have not done so in such a manner. He should have been forthright and said that a statement will be forthcoming. No one should be expected to answer such an allegation without time to prepare. But to just say he would wait for the reporters to do their job and then he might respond? There is nothing transparent about this. It is simply saying, my response will be based on how the media ends up portraying he situation. We are way beyond the need for spin. We need honest transparency. The report listed those prelates who knew and/or covered up McCarrick’s actions. At this point, that information needs to be truthfully exposed. The US Bishops called for it two weeks ago.

What I am afraid is now going to happen, indeed it already had started, are lots of journalist scrambling to find information that supports “their side”. There will be credible reports about various details that favor each side ( unfortunately sides are being taken). We won’t know what to believe.

There is one person who can help clear this up: Pope Francis. I pray he does.

 

[Jeanne_S]

My question too.How is Archbishop Chaput involved?

 

[Erikaspirit16]

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.

Yes, that’s right. What it DOESN’T say is that the police had already investigated (“an intensive investigation” according to county officials) and found the accused priest was innocent of the charges. So yes, in light of the intensive police investigation that found the priest innocent, Vigano stopped the parallel church investigation. Sounds logical to me.