Pope Francis Must Resign: Archbishop Vigano

[bullish1]

Thanks for posting these links. I think we are going to be seeing many more opinions like this coming out on all sides of the matter. I am a bit surprised that it’s been 4 hours and no one has come out with the “troll” remarks yet. Nothing but “crickets”.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

Yes, it was a rather inelegant and imprudent way to say “I will respond at a later time” or “a response will be forthcoming.”

 

[bullish1]

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.

Can you cite a source for this? I did quite a bit of digging and never saw that.

 

[tafan2]

I believe in the report, he was the Bishop from Philadelphia to which Pope Francis was referring when he supposedly said the following:

“yes, the Bishops in the United States must not be ideologized, they mustnot be right-wing like the Archbishop of Philadelphia”

 

[abucs]

Yes, it was a rather inelegant and impurdent way to say “I will respond at a later time” or “a response will be forthcoming.”

But did he say he will respond at latter time?

 

[Joe_5859]

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

This is an interesting thing for him to say. I am curious as to what leads him to this conclusion.

I’ll be honest, the fact that Vigano’s letter was translated by someone at LifeSiteNews does make me feel uneasy.

 

[Mtdobbs]

Most conservative sites I have read are saying this was an imprudent decision by vigano. It doesn’t make his claims false.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

No, he did not. He needed to, and botched the response. I am saying what I would have said, which is what I hoped he meant. Somehow, I would not be surprised if he has no intention of responding to any of it. He comes off as very defiant at times, to me.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Can you cite a source for this? I did quite a bit of digging and never saw that.

Wikipedia!

Which also cites these articles:

1. “Archbishop Nienstedt: New allegations of sexual misconduct ‘entirely false’”. Archived from the original on July 14, 2014. Retrieved July 3, 2014.
2. Goodstein, Laurie; Perez-Pena, Richard (20 July 2016). “Minnesota Priest’s Memo Says Vatican Ambassador Tried to Stifle Sex Abuse Inquiry”. New York Times . Retrieved 23 July 2016.
3. Yuen, Laura; Cox, Peter (21 July 2016). “Did the Vatican halt an investigation into former Twin Cities Archbishop Nienstedt?”. Minnesota Public Radio . Retrieved 23 July 2016.

 

[TheLittleLady]

This is why it helps me to read ‘The Bad Popes’ every couple of years. I rejoice that the Church has survived fallible humans.

 

[Mtdobbs]

Loading…

www.theamericanconservative.com

This is my favourite article so far. It sounds truthful as it is unbiased

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, who was the First Counsellor of the Nunciature in Washington, was cited by Vigano as saying that Benedict’s sanctions were conveyed to McCarrick by then-nuncio Pietro Sambi.
Fr. Lantheaume–according to Vigano–said there was a “stormy conversation [with McCarrick] lasting over an hour…[Sambi’s] voice could be heard all the way out in the corridor.”

Hearsay, right? But now they’ve tracked down Fr. Lantheaume in France. What does he say? “Vigano said the truth. That’s all.”

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/former-nunciature-official-vigano-said-the-truth-38319

 

[jfz178]

As I said, we either have to accept that imperfect men can be successors to Christ on Earth, or we have no basis for Catholicism. Even the apostles were seriously imperfect. Peter denied Christ and Judas betrayed Him. I think those incidents should have meaning for us. A man doesn’t have to be perfect to carry on apostolic succession.

I am also very upset about the current scandals, but I see it as a managerial problem in the Church. The spiritual part of the Church is still alive and well.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

And now we come to Cardinal Wuerl’s denial of Vigano’s charges:

““Cardinal Wuerl did not receive documentation or information from the Holy See specific to Cardinal McCarrick’s behavior or any of the prohibitions on his life and ministry suggested by Archbishop Vigano,” the cardinal’s spokesman, Ed McFadden, told CNA.”

Anyone who has listened to politicians for more than five minutes sees the issue here. What Wuerl is denying is VERY specific (“documentation or information from the Holy See”). He’s NOT saying he didn’t know about it. He’s NOT saying we wasn’t told by Vigano or others (they are not the “Holy See” are they?).

And of course this is through a “spokesman.” Avoiding the press and follow-up questions? One wonders.
We’ll see!

Cardinal Wuerl denies Vigano allegation about McCarrick restriction

Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington has denied a report that he was informed about restrictions apparently placed by the Vatican upon his predecessor, Archbishop Theodore McCarrick.

www.catholicnewsagency.com

 

[Mtdobbs]

Can somebody find put what sanctions Benedict placed on mcCarrck. I have found conflicting things. Some say he was asked to leave he seminary and others say Benedict allowed him to reside at the seminary where was living. Any answers would be helpful.

 

[Joe_5859]

I think the reason you are having difficulty finding this information is that no one seems to know. Vigano didn’t seem to know exactly what the sanctions entailed. Even the NCRegister article that insinuated they corroborated parts of the story with Pope Benedict himself indicated that Pope Benedict couldn’t recall the exact nature of the sanctions.

So we have secret sanctions that no one can seem to clearly define. In my mind, that’s the biggest hole in the narrative. After all, how could Pope Francis have “lifted” sanctions against McCarrick if no one seems to even know what they were?

 

[tafan2]

Your final statement is certainly a defense of Pope Francis’s rehabilitation of McCarrick. The sanctions by Benedict seem to have been a private affair, so it’s easy to see how Francis, who has a history of giving a prelates the benefit of doubt, would have effectively nullified them. Just as his initial statement defending Bishop Barras of Chile somewhat hurt his credibility, so would this, but we can move forward. But, just as he apologized and explained his actions in that case, he needs to do so in this case.
On the other hand, Vigano gives a list of officials who covered up and abbetted McCarrick to varying degrees. These men either need their name cleared or they should be held accountable. They were not just ignoring hearsay, as perhaps Pope Francis was.

 

[Joe_5859]

I know it makes sense considering the fact that the pope is always going to be the most high-profile Catholic, but I’m a bit surprised more media attention isn’t being paid to these other curial officials. Vigano’s letter is far more damaging to other clerics than it is to Francis—particularly the last three Secretaries of State.

 

[Mtdobbs]

Cardinals/ bishops who were considered conservative and liberal are implicated but the church is holier today than yesterday. The more the truth comes out, the better.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I’m a bit surprised more media attention isn’t being paid to these other curial officials. Vigano’s letter is far more damaging to other clerics than it is to Francis—particularly the last three Secretaries of State.

Yes, but they’re not all sitting in New Jersey. They’re all Italians, probably still in Rome. And they don’t give press conferences every day. No doubt the Italian press is on the case, and we’ll eventually get tidbits from them, but they have to carry the ball on this one.