Pope Francis Must Resign: Archbishop Vigano

[Erikaspirit16]

From the context of how Erikaspirit used the term, it’s clear she meant the normal US meaning

Well, allow me to interpret what I meant! One (one = not the only) problem is that US journalists, US bishops, US forum posters, etc. seem to be assuming that the US meaning of “due process” extends to the entire world. It does not.

I went out of my way in an earlier post to explain that different countries have totally different legal systems. Each would say that it is following “due process” in the sense it is following the legal process in its own country.

In terms of the sexual abuse crisis in the church (or in the military, universities, corporations, etc.) one major problem has been excessive concern for the rights of the accused (“due process” if you like). The default assumption has been (in my opinion) that the accuser is doing it to make money, to take revenge on someone, has a personal vendetta, or did it just out of spite (if you doubt this, see the comments about Vigano in this thread). As far as I know, about 4% of accusations are false. That means 96% are true. The default position SHOULD be that the accuser is telling the truth. And this is the whole point of the “Time’s Up” and “Me Too” movement. Accusers should be believed, not silenced. This doesn’t mean you trample on the rights of the accused, but it also doesn’t mean the rights of the accused should take precedence over the rights of the victims.

And the other major problem (as I said before…) is the problem of “proof.” Again, a lot of people seem to be taking the formal legal meaning (or even the mathematical meaning!) and demanding it in these situations. That’s absurd. Some of these things happened 20+ years ago, there were rarely witnesses, and if there were some of them are dead. But, once again, the Church does NOT need to “prove” guilt in the legal sense. The question to ask is “Is it plausible? Is it more likely than not?”

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Another general comment is that there are many people posting here that equate any criticism of the Pope as an attack on Catholicism, or the work of the devil, etc.

So if we were back in the early 16th century, would you be defending Alexander VI (Borgia…)? The Pope is not God, he is a man. He speaks for God on occasion, but he can make mistakes, and he can certainly commit sins.

At this point I see a lot of people squabbling over “conservative” vs. “liberal.” Is the sexual abuse of children “conservative” or “liberal”? If so, please explain it to me. Surely we all agree sexual abuse is a bad thing? That those who protect abusers are also guilty? That those who know of abuse and allow it to continue are guilty? If anyone thinks these are political issues, then we are indeed in deep, deep trouble.

It’s heartening to see all the letters from bishops and archbishops in the US attesting to Vigano’s character and asking for a transparent and honest investigation.

I’ll repeat what I said before: This is not just “one of” the issues the Pope needs to deal with. It is THE issue. Until this is dealt with, nothing else really matters, because nothing else is of such fundamental importance. Surely we can agree on that.

 

[anon10271182]

I agree that it is “the issue.” And the Church needs to stop compromising on homosexual activity, period. No homosexual priests, no homosexual bishops, no “same sex blessings,” no special treatment for “LGBT…” or any others who identify themselves in relation to their sexual sin or attraction thereto. If that means the world condemns the Roman Catholic Church as “homophobic,” so what? It’s a stupid, made-up pejorative anyway.

 

[HarryStotle]

As far as I know, about 4% of accusations are false. That means 96% are true. The default position SHOULD be that the accuser is telling the truth.

Since when has “as far as I know” become a solid basis for determining what is true and a default position?

Care to explain where you got what you know, or are you just pulling the numbers out of a hat?

 

[Erikaspirit16]

In case no one has noticed, I DO NOT REPLY to Harrystotle. We have crossed paths before, and his MO is to ask question after question. I ignore him.

However, for the sake of others who think I’m full of …, I invite you to do a simple search on “what percentage of sexual abuse claims are false.” You will find statistics from the UK Home Office, the FBI, Stanford U., and tons of other highly reputable sources. Some put the number of false accusations at 2%; some as high as 6%. But in general, 4% is the number. I never, ever make stuff up.

 

[PeterT]

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.

I too find the timing of the letter suspicious. Why did the ex-nuncio keep quiet for all these years? And did Pope Benedict really impose the sanctions, as described in the letter, on Cardinal McCarrick? If so, why weren’t they enforced during Pope Benedict’s papacy? Why weren’t the sanctions made public like the sanctions that Pope Francis finally imposed on Cardinal McCarrick? The secret sanctions as supposedly imposed by Pope Benedict sounds more like the double-secret probation imposed on the Delta Tau Chi fraternity in the movie Animal House.

The ex-nuncio would have a lot more credibility if he made public these allegations a lot earlier.

 

[Ghosty1981]

The secret sanctions as supposedly imposed by Pope Benedict sounds more like the double-secret probation imposed on the Delta Tau Chi fraternity in the movie Animal House.

Secret sanctions were not unheard of, especially in cases where there wasn’t a criminal component (and McCarrick’s case only recently became a criminal matter). I can’t speak to Bishops being privately censured, but I have certainly known religious being censured in such a manner, living their lives among the faithful without anyone knowing better.

 

[PeterT]

PeterT:

The secret sanctions as supposedly imposed by Pope Benedict sounds more like the double-secret probation imposed on the Delta Tau Chi fraternity in the movie Animal House.

Secret sanctions were not unheard of, especially in cases where there wasn’t a criminal component (and McCarrick’s case only recently became a criminal matter). I can’t speak to Bishops being privately censured, but I have certainly known religious being censured in such a manner, living their lives among the faithful without anyone knowing better.

But it doesn’t appear the sanctions supposedly imposed by Pope Benedict on McCarrick were actually enforced. McCarrick continued to travel, continued to lecture. So if the sanctions were unenforced, were they really sanctions at all?

 

[Ghosty1981]

But it doesn’t appear the sanctions supposedly imposed by Pope Benedict on McCarrick were actually enforced. McCarrick continued to travel, continued to lecture. So if the sanctions were unenforced, were they really sanctions at all?

Pope Benedict did say that his authority went only as far as his doorway. There is no police force that can enforce such sanctions, especially if they are conveyed discreetly. It is expected that the penitent will follow them for the good of their soul, just as we are expected to follow our penances after Confession.

I can’t speak to what sanctions, if any, were imposed on McCarrick. I can only say that secret, discreet sanctions are not unheard of.

 

[RogueSemicolon]

In a book published by Ignatius Press in 2010, Light of the World, the journalist Peter Seewald gives a book-length interview with Pope Benedict XVI five years after his papal election in which the topic of papal resignation comes up (chapter 2, p. 29):

"The great majority of these [sexual abuse] cases took place decades ago. Nevertheless they burden your pontificate now in particular. Have you thought of resigning?

“When the danger is great one must not run away. For that reason, now is certainly not the time to resign. Precisely at a time like this one must stand fast and endure the difficult situation. That is my view. One can resign at a peaceful moment or when one simply cannot go on. But one must not run away from danger and say that someone else should do it.”

Pope Francis finds himself in a similar predicament in which calls for his resignation are being made, in part, because of sexual abuse by clergy and the subsequent cover-ups and lack of accountability by those in position of power from decades ago has come to light during his pontificate, but, most especially, that he is now being implicated in covering for Theodore McCarrick, lifting sanctions imposed in private by his predecessor, and apparently making him a trusted adviser, while allegedly having knowledge of his gravely sinful past. Whether this is true, the precedent made by Pope Benedict XVI, through his example as pontiff and abdication of his pontifical duties, shows that Pope Francis ought not resign but "stand fast and endure the difficult situation." To do otherwise would shift the burden of responsibility on others to do what Pope Francis has all the power to do himself.

In a follow up question, Seewald asks Pope Benedict XVI, “Is it possible then to imagine a situation in which you would consider a resignation by the Pope appropriate?” And Benedict responds:

“Yes. If a Pope clearly realizes that he is no longer physically, psychologically, and spiritually capable of handling the duties of his office, then he has a right, and, under some circumstances, also an obligation to resign.” (Ibid, p. 30)

If one is to follow Pope Benedict XVI’s precedence for papal resignation, then in calling for Pope Francis to resign, one would need to justify it based on the Pope’s inability to continue to fulfill his official duties. We should instead urge Pope Francis to continue to lead and take responsibility for his sins, grave errors in judgment–whatever they may be–and be a witness for the Church and the world of humility and repentance. And we should furthermore plead for greater accountability among the Church hierarchy.

The crisis in the Church extends beyond mere corruption in the hierarchy that must be addressed at a canonical level. It’s a crisis of faith among those who are called to lead the Church in the faith. There cannot be reform within the Church leadership without a re-conversion of the heart to Christ, the one who leads the Church above all men.

 

[PeterT]

The crisis in the Church extends beyond mere corruption in the hierarchy that must be addressed at a canonical level. It’s a crisis of faith among those who are called to lead the Church in the faith. There cannot be reform within the Church leadership without a re-conversion of the heart to Christ, the one who leads the Church above all men.

Very well said…

 

[commenter]

exnihilo:

It’s not absurd at all. And it’s not really a question of the power to tell the Pope who to appoint. The issue is how much the Pope would follow the recommendations of McCarrick. Most leaders have trusted advisors. The Pope might know very little about particular candidates and rely solely on trusted advisors.

Oh my! What is absurd is that Cdl Cupich would say it’s absurd for the Pope to be influenced. I think it’s absurd for a Pope (or anyone else) not to use trusted advisors for important decisions. How can he possible know 5,000 Bishops. This of course proves nothing other that Cdl Cupich is reaching a bit in trying to criticize Vigano.

Reaching more than a little bit ! There is a coordinated attack on the character of this man (Vigano)

 

[commenter]

In child welfare about 2/3 of sex abuse reports are unfounded.

 

[commenter]

And given that he often has issues with saying the wrong thing/ speaking withou thinking/ getting mis-translated or misunderstood/ etc,

From earlier poster (tis)
I agree. Given the environment we are in, this is a good reason for the Pope to retire.

 

[bullish1]

Why did the ex-nuncio keep quiet for all these years?

I would guess there would be very great hesitation to be the reason for a great schism in the Church. Seeing the Pope in Ireland say one thing and in Vigano’s mind, knowing he was doing something else became too much.

And did Pope Benedict really impose the sanctions, as described in the letter, on Cardinal McCarrick?

Pope Benedict has partially confirmed this already.

If so, why weren’t they enforced during Pope Benedict’s papacy?

We already know that some things were curtailed by Wuerl’s admission. Move out of the seminary, cancelled meeting with the seminarians. Perhaps he was just defiant and the Pope too weary to fight this any longer.

Why weren’t the sanctions made public like the sanctions that Pope Francis finally imposed on Cardinal McCarrick?

Previously given a great answer by @Ghostly1981

The secret sanctions as supposedly imposed by Pope Benedict sounds more like the double-secret probation imposed on the Delta Tau Chi fraternity in the movie Animal House.

Cute, and funny! Too bad this whole affair is so sad.

 

[HarryStotle]

In case no one has noticed, I DO NOT REPLY to Harrystotle. We have crossed paths before, and his MO is to ask question after question. I ignore him.

However, for the sake of others who think I’m full of …, I invite you to do a simple search on “what percentage of sexual abuse claims are false.” You will find statistics from the UK Home Office, the FBI, Stanford U., and tons of other highly reputable sources. Some put the number of false accusations at 2%; some as high as 6%. But in general, 4% is the number. I never, ever make stuff up.

This article cites the work of the founders of the Innocence Project, who claim that 20 to 25 percent of those cases that have been referred to the FBI have been exonerated by the FBI as a result of DNA testing.

The germaine quote is this one…
“Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained, the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing. Specifically, FBI officials report that out of roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases since 1989, about 2,000 tests have been inconclusive, about 2,000 tests have excluded the primary suspect, and about 6,000 have “matched” or included the primary suspect.”

The authors continued, “these percentages have remained constant for 7 years, and the National Institute of Justice’s informal survey of private laboratories reveals a strikingly similar 26 percent exclusion rate.”

Thus, 1 in 4 of those accused of rape – cases that have been found sufficiently credible to involve the FBI or private laboratories – have been proven innocent.

Ergo, your claim that only 4% of accusations are false is highly disputable.

You “may never, ever make stuff up,” but you may be premature in reaching conclusions.

I tended to think the reason you didn’t respond to my posts was because you couldn’t answer them. And here I learn it was because you had no answers. I suppose ignoring questions is an effective way to deal with them. Saves a lot of energy on having to think.

Feel free to ignore this post or talk around it, if you wish, but your conclusion regarding the rate of allegations turning out to be true is suspect because it isn’t as supported as you think.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

In child welfare about 2/3 of sex abuse reports are unfounded.

I’m not sure where you got that number. Maybe you know something I don’t, and if so, please share a source.

All I know is that if you search on “child abuse - what percentage of accusations are false” there are a bunch of studies. All give the % I gave, not yours.

For example: “On the basis of a representative sample of 7672 cases of abuse investigated by child protection authorities in Canada, Trocmé and Bala (2005) noted that only 4% of the 35% of unsubstantiated cases were deemed to be the product of intentionally fabricated false allegations. The rate was slightly higher in cases of sexual abuse (6%) compared with cases of physical abuse (4%), neglect (4%), and emotional maltreatment (2%). However, none of the false allegations of sexual abuse had come from the children themselves.”

False Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse | INSPQ

On this pageDefinition and prevalence of false allegations of sexual abuseFactors that can lead to false allegations of child sexual abuseValidating a child’s statementHighlightsThe number of children who make false allegations of sexual abuse is lower than the number of children who do not...

www.inspq.qc.ca

Or Lisa Lazard, Open U., UK: " Research suggests that only 4% of cases of sexual violence reported to the UK police are found or suspected to be false. Studies carried out in Europe and in the US indicate rates of between 2% and 6%."

Here’s the truth about false accusations of sexual violence

Compared to how prevalent sexual harassment is, false claims are rare.

theconversation.com

Or Wikipedia: “Studies of child abuse allegations suggest that the overall rate of false accusation is under 10%.[1][2][3][4]” False allegation of child sexual abuse - Wikipedia

 

[exnihilo]

Thus, 1 in 4 of those accused of rape – cases that have been found sufficiently credible to involve the FBI or private laboratories – have been proven innocent.

Found not guilty. The courts don’t find you innocent. Also this line of proof relies on the absence of evidence. The absence of evidence often does not mean anything.

We had a local Innocence Project case. They didn’t ‘prove’ the man accused was innocent at all. But a judge did release him from prison. The convicted man was a cause celebre and I think that is what ‘proved’ his innocence.

 

[bullish1]

If one is to follow Pope Benedict XVI’s precedence for papal resignation, then in calling for Pope Francis to resign, one would need to justify it based on the Pope’s inability to continue to fulfill his official duties. We should instead urge Pope Francis to continue to lead and take responsibility for his sins, grave errors in judgment–whatever they may be–and be a witness for the Church and the world of humility and repentance. And we should furthermore plead for greater accountability among the Church hierarchy.

I agree that Pope Francis could be the best one to sort out this mess. Certainly if is innocent of the allegations! Even if he did do these things, he might be the one most capable of righting the ship. If he covered it up and there are others who abetted that process, admission and penance and change is required. This is a far different situation than expecting a Don to change his Mafia to become law abiding, or a corrupt CEO changing his and the company into compliance. We still belong to the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We know there is sin and through grace, forgiveness.

I first want answers to the allegations. I am not willing to let “professional journalist” determine next steps. Vigano has laid out details that should be verifiable in nuncio and Vatican documents. The longer this is delayed, the more skeptical everyone will become that the shedders are on overdrive already.

 

[HarryStotle]

For example: “On the basis of a representative sample of 7672 cases of abuse investigated by child protection authorities in Canada, Trocmé and Bala (2005) noted that only 4% of the 35% of unsubstantiated cases were deemed to be the product of intentionally fabricated false allegations. The rate was slightly higher in cases of sexual abuse (6%) compared with cases of physical abuse (4%), neglect (4%), and emotional maltreatment (2%). However, none of the false allegations of sexual abuse had come from the children themselves.”
False Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse | Sexual Assault | INSPQ

Note that the cited study claims that 35% of the allegations of abuse were unfounded or lacked substantiation. The 4% refers to deliberate intent to mislead based upon fabrication.

That isn’t exactly what you claimed.

It doesn’t imply 96% of allegations are true, it means that only 4% of the 35% of unsubstantiated cases were deliberately made up. A significant portion of the remaining cases may still turn out to be unfounded, though without intent to mislead. In fact, 35% of allegations turned out to be just that, according to the cited study of 7672 cases.