Pope Francis Must Resign: Archbishop Vigano

[tafan2]

Yes it is. And, assuming the Pope’s hands are no more stained than my post states, I think he could lead the clean-up of the McCarrick case just fine. But he has to be willing to do so. Also, he will be fighting the same curia forces as Benedict. The same forces that, until now, he has co-opted to advance his broader agenda.

 

[exnihilo]

In 2005, shortly after becoming Pope, Benedict reportedly pointed to the entrance to his office and told a visitor, “My authority ends at that door.” In one sense this is false. The Catholic Church officially teaches that the Pope has universal authority over the governance of the Church. Benedict was talking about de facto authority. He was talking about how he was, in reality, a figurehead.

People need to understand that in any political system (and that inlcudes the Church hierarchy) the head does not necessarily really control things. All power rests on the willingness of those under it to respect it. The led are always far more numerous than the leaders.

His 2013 resignation was said to have come about after he realized how thoroughly the pro-gay lobby within the Roman curia had seized the reigns of power.

This rumor has ever increasing credibility.

Still, keep in mind that Vigano was a senior Vatican diplomat who was in a position to have all this knowledge, and to see the documents.

This seem to me a whistleblower at the highest level. This simply can’t be ignored as the Church’s credibility is seriously harmed either way. Either way high ranking prelates stand exposed as doing something seriously wrong.

 

[exnihilo]

If Pope Francis denied any role in this and said he would investigate and clean house then the press could could focus more on others.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

If Pope Francis denied any role in this and said he would investigate and clean house then the press could could focus more on others.

More WORDS??? I personally am WAY beyond words and promises. I want action, and I want it now. Not next week, not next month, not in 10 years.

 

[exnihilo]

Action is good, but we do need to follow due process.

 

[tafan2]

Understandable, but what action would you have him take? What we need now is words, words that tell us what actions we can expect in the near future.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Action is good, but we do need to follow due process.

The Vatican is not the USA. The US rules of due process do NOT apply. Other countries have completely different judicial systems–for example, the prosecutor in Italy DIRECTS the police investigation. In France, the judicial system is supposed to find the TRUTH, not necessarily find innocence and guilt.

The Vatican is a theocracy. They make their own rules. Do we want to punish innocent people? Of course not. But if there is credible evidence (and make it a low bar), suspend the suspect and investigate–with an expert third party, NOT his bishop or superior. Victims (not of the offense being investigated, obviously) should be part of any investigative team.

This notion of “due process” is exactly why we’re in the middle of this crisis.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Understandable, but what action would you have him take?

I want him to suspend from all duties anyone who has been credibly accused. I want a full investigation (see my post above) to start immediately–not five years down the road. I want transparent access to Vatican records–allow neutral 3rd parties in to examine and copy them. That’s a START.

 

[exnihilo]

Due process is a broad idea. It applies to every system. A just system should have due process.

I don’t think we are in this mess because of due process. We are in this mess due to a failure to act and a pattern of ignoring and/or hiding relevant information from parties that needed to know.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I don’t think we are in this mess because of due process. We are in this mess due to a failure to act and a pattern of ignoring and/or hiding relevant information from parties that needed to know.

You just said it yourself: Why did they fail to act? Because they were so wrapped up in the idea of “due process” for any accused priest. It paralyzed them.

 

[exnihilo]

Actually in your interpretation I think you have a more optimistic view of the problem than I have. I don’t think they were concerned about due process. I wish that was the problem. I think for at least some there were other worse motivations behind the problem. I definitely think a desire to protect the institution (as perceived by layman and others) was a large part of the motivation. Some may have been motivated by politics as well.

So no, I personally don’t beleive it was concern for due process.

 

[7_Sorrows]

gracepoole:

You know, the more I think about it, the more I am very concerned that an archbishop has publicly called for the resignation of the pontiff. Of course it’s important to uncover the truth regarding this issue. But it’s a disgusting sign of the times that those in the hierarchy are battling one another in the public eye.

I would describe how I feel as more disgusted than concerned. There were some serious accusations in what the Archbishop wrote, but the vast majority of it was a circumstantial accusations against bishops he doesn’t like. How did Cardinal Cupich end up in this at all except as a punching bag for this archbishop? There were no direct accusations at all except it seems that Vigano doesn’t like him.

When you correlate whom Vigano attacked with what you read in the fake "catholic’ media, there’s pretty much a one-to-one correspondence. All the same punching bags, all the same heroes.

Pope Francis is right to not talk about it. This is ‘caca’.

I wish the Pope could have come up with a better response than using the word “caca”. He is the leader of over 1 billion
Catholics worldwide. I wish he could have expressed himself using a different vocabulary.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Let’s move off this subject and take sexual abuse in the military.

Let’s say I’m a recruit, and my training sergeant forces me to have sex. There are no witnesses. It’s my word against his. I complain to my company commander. He’s friends with the sergeant. Nothing happens. A second woman complains of exactly the same type of offense against the same sergeant. At that point, the sergeant should be suspended from his duties and confined to barracks until they (an expert third party commission–NOT the commanding officer) can investigate. Even if the sergeant is found “innocent” simply because they can’t PROVE his guilt, he should be carefully supervised for the rest of his time in the army and he should be re-assigned to some technical job away from recruits.

That’s not what happens, of course. They are so concerned with “due process” that tens of thousands of credible complaints are dismissed, and tens of thousands of lives are ruined.

I’m not saying concern for due process is 100% of the cause of the lack of action. I’m saying I think it’s a major cause. And I’m going further: by getting honest people (you, presumably) to back “due process,” they avoid doing anything and can justify it by “public support.”

 

[exnihilo]

What is proving a claim? There are many degrees of credibility. But a lot of claims turn out to simply be one person’s word versus another. How do you justly determine who is telling the truth in such situations?

And I’m going further: by getting honest people (you, presumably) to back “due process,” they avoid doing anything and can justify it by “public support.”

Due process for me doesn’t mean sitting around doing nothing. I think a serious, widespread investigation needs to be made into the Catholic hierarchy.

 

[o_mlly]

I definitely think a desire to protect the institution (as perceived by layman and others) was a large part of the motivation.

I believe that protecting the church motivated some to engage in a cover up and to do so is a grave mistake in judgement. The church is Christ’s sacrament (instrument) for the benefit of mankind to come to holiness.

To protect or perfect the instrument (church) at the expense of the end (holiness of the people of God) is a grave mistake.

 

[7_Sorrows]

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.

A managerial problem that has been allowed to go on for too long and no one seems capable of finding an answer to.

 

[EnglishTeacher]

This is making me feel even worse. What does all the above say about the Church being led by the Holy Spirit and the HS leading the voting for Pope?

I am not sure that it is correct to say that Holy Spirit necessarily leads the voting for the Pope. The cardinals choose whom they choose. Hopefully most of them pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit before voting, but there is no guarantee that the group necessarily chooses the best man for the office every time. But once he is chosen, the protection of the Holy Spirit is promised to the office of pope in that he is protected against teaching error in his official capacity as pope.

Another way to look at the matter, though, is that we have had 266 popes in over the course of 2,000 years. Of those, about 10-ish were corrupt popes. The majority of popes have been good and decent men, and many have even been saintly.

 

[tafan2]

This notion of “due process” is exactly why we’re in the middle of this crisis.

I disagree. We are in the middle of the child sex abuse crisis because of mainly a misplaced desire to avoid scandal by the bishops. As to the McCarrick issue, we are in the middle of this crisis because the man had a high degree of influence and a lot of political friends in high places.

Too much concern for due process had little, if any, role at all.

 

[tafan2]

Much of this seems like a good idea to me. But with regards to the McCarrick case, how can he do this right now? Which of the prelates named in the letter are credibly accused? I think, as a whole, the document is credible, ie believable. I do not think every little detail is necessarily credible. And credible does not mean I think it is true, just there is a good chance it is true.
But one does not have too look too far in the reporting and commenting on this letter to find people who do not find it credible at all. So right now, we need an investigation. Suspensions do not have to wait until it is over, but some level of work needs done verifying the claims.

 

[Victoria33]

I try to be careful of baring false witness and calumny/slander in judging others. It is true that sometimes, we must make a stance on issues. I care to tread softly.