Pope Francis Must Resign: Archbishop Vigano

[Joe_5859]

Here is a video from Bishop Barron. He talks a bit about everything—from the initial allegations against McCarrick, to the Pennsylvania grand jury report, to Vigano’s recent letter:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2650607241631662

One point he makes, that I think is worth repeating is that, when thinking about an investigation into McCarrick, Archbishop Vigano would have already been on the shortlist of people that needed to be questioned. This is in light of the fact that he was the nuncio here for 5 years in this time frame and his predecessors in that role are all dead.

In that sense (and these are my thoughts, not Bishop Barron’s), Vigano has simply expedited the process by giving his testimony now rather than waiting around for a commission to be formed. He would have been saying all these things soon enough anyway.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

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.

OK, I’ll bite, against my better judgment, since this is a key issue.

First, your article is from Fox News. I think I could stop there, but I won’t. Let’s quote from the article: “Politically correct feminists claim false rape accusations are rare and account for only 2 percent of all reports.” “Politically correct feminists”? OK…no bias there, right? Oh, and by the way, who is a key source for the article? Wendy McElroy. I’ll leave it to the curious to look her up. Her bias factor on a 1-10 scale? 10. She’s notorious.

Second, the author cites a study from 1996: “The study documents 28 cases which, “with the exception of one young man of limited mental capacity who pleaded guilty,” consist of individuals who were convicted by juries and, then, later exonerated by DNA tests.” 28 cases. Is that a representative sample? He later cites another study with 40 cases. This is not science or anything close to it.

Then he goes on to cite the Innocence Project. Guess what? The Innocence Project has a vested interest in minimizing guilt. But let’s actually look at the quotation: "“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.”

Oh oh. See any problem here? They are cherry picking cases. “referred to the FBI…” “where results could be obtained…” They are NOT talking about all rapes–far from it. They mention “10,000 sexual assault cases since 1989…” How many reported rapes are there a year in the US? (Note: REPORTED–everyone agrees that it is an underreported crime.) I can’t quickly find statistics for 1989-95, but Here are the number of reported rapes for six years between 2003-2008: 93,883, 95,089, 94,347, 94,472, 92,999, 90,750. Pretty consistent. Let’s add those up: 561,540. The study Fox News is citing covered (cherry picking…) 10,000. That’s 1.78%. 1.78% of cherry picked cases means absolutely nothing.

And the Fox News story admits that just because DNA didn’t match a certain suspect doesn’t mean the woman wasn’t raped or that her complaint of being raped is false, it just means that particular guy didn’t do it.

Again, anyone who is curious can do their own search and see for themselves.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

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.

“Innocent” in the technical legal sense of “presumed innocent until proved guilty.”

You are correct though, that ‘not guilty’ doesn’t prove ‘innocence,’ but it does presume it, legally speaking.

 

[ucfengr]

Clarification: Pope Francis should only step down if he is indeed guilty of what he has been accused of.

As the head of the Catholic Church, I don’t see how the Pope can be absolved from responsibility for what is going on under his watch, whether he took active part or not. I think at this point, the way Pope Francis has handled the situation is hurting the Church, and if nothing else, this is reason for him to step down. Personally, I think he should open all the books and make a full accounting before he goes. The corruption within the Church needs to be cleaned out top to bottom. Anything less leaves us where we are in which every couple of years a new sex abuse scandal erupts further damaging the Church.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

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.

You have completely misread the article.

“Unsubstantiated” simply means they couldn’t find corroborating evidence. It DOESN’T mean the allegation was false.

And the 4% “intentionally fabricated false allegations” refers only to the 35% of cases that were “unsubstantiated.” But of course if you add the 65% of the “substantiated” cases back, the 4% number falls to less than 2%.

I am now reverting to my previous policy: I will not respond to you comments.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Here is a video from Bishop Barron. He talks a bit about everything—from the initial allegations against McCarrick, to the Pennsylvania grand jury report, to Vigano’s recent letter:

Redirecting...

One point he makes, that I think is worth repeating is that, when thinking about an investigation into McCarrick, Archbishop Vigano would have already been on the shortlist of people that needed to be questioned. This is in light of the fact that he was the nuncio here for 5 years in this time frame and his predecessors in that role are all dead.

In that sense (and these are my thoughts, not Bishop Barron’s), Vigano has simply expedited the process by giving his testimony now rather than waiting around for a commission to be formed. He would have been saying all these things soon enough anyway.

Thanks for posting that excellent interview with Bishop Barron. Amazing that within hours of returning from his trip to Ireland he was able to was able to give such a n informative interview. You can tell he has given much thought to all this and he certainly described all aspects of the scandal in a way i have not heard yet.
He has a good understanding of the problem, the implications and the profound impact on the institution
of the Church and the work the Holy Mother church is supposed to be doing.
I really needed to hear someone speak as clearly as he did about this scandal. He was very open.

 

[HarryStotle]

And the Fox News story admits that just because DNA didn’t match a certain suspect doesn’t mean the woman wasn’t raped or that her complaint of being raped is false, it just means that particular guy didn’t do it.

Except that when a rape victim alleges she was raped by a particular guy, the fact that “that particular guy didn’t do it” is quite an important feature of the allegation. How does a woman get THAT fact wrong to the point that she is pointing fingers at the wrong guy? And, yes, I can imagine cases where there might be a legitimate reason, but I wouldn’t think in 20% of the overall total number.

By the way, Wendy McElroy is a self-professed feminist and a woman, so I would presume she has a vested interest in getting the facts about rape correct. The fact the she doesn’t agree with you is irrelevant to whether she is correct or not. Ditto, with the fact that her article appeared in a FoxNews site.

At least you didn’t stop with the innuendo and the requisite politically correct formalities of disavowing the ideological untouchables. You actually did address a point.

 

[HarryStotle]

You have completely misread the article.

“Unsubstantiated” simply means they couldn’t find corroborating evidence. It DOESN’T mean the allegation was false.

Other than that is precisely what I said, I am not clear how that shows I “completely misread the article.”

Just because 35% the allegations were unfounded or unproved, doesn’t mean they were false. But it also doesn’t mean they were true – which YOU would have to assume to claim what you did.

What you claimed, originally, was…

As far as I know, about 4% of accusations are false. That means 96% are true.

No, the fact that 4% of 35% of unsubstantiated accusations are deliberately fabricated does not mean the remaining 96% are true. It just means they were not deliberately fabricated, as far as can be known.

Your own cited article shows that the 4% refers to 4% of the 35% of accusations that could not be substantiated. At best, that demonstrates that 65% are substantially true, with the possibility of some unknown portion of the remaining 35% being true.

What makes you assume they are all true, though, without sufficient proof?

So, how about you retract your claim that 96% of accusations are true?

You haven’t proven it to be true, just deflected.

And the 4% “intentionally fabricated false allegations” refers only to the 35% of cases that were “unsubstantiated.” But of course if you add the 65% of the “substantiated” cases back, the 4% number falls to less than 2%.

You aren’t going to conclude that, therefore, >98% of accusations are true – thus proving you haven’t yet grasped my point – are you?

I am now reverting to my previous policy: I will not respond to you comments.

It is pretty clear why you have such a policy.

 

[wkj_123]

Even if he did do these things, he might be the one most capable of righting the ship

I find this absolutely preposterous. If he did do those things, you think he would be the best man to fix it? So I guess McCarrick is a great choice to head up a committee on how to stop abuses with seminarians, and perhaps Bernard Law, if he was still alive, should head up an investigation on how to stop shifting priests accused of abuse from one parish to another?

 

[HarryStotle]

bullish1:

Even if he did do these things, he might be the one most capable of righting the ship

I find this absolutely preposterous. If he did do those things, you think he would be the best man to fix it? So I guess McCarrick is a great choice to head up a committee on how to stop abuses with seminarians, and perhaps Bernard Law, if he was still alive, should head up an investigation on how to stop shifting priests accused of abuse from one parish to another?

I don’t think it is preposterous.

If Pope Francis made his decisions about McCarrick based upon the advice of others he trusted, he would have some insights into who are the enablers in the hierarchy that a new pope may not. A new pope may fumble around for years in the dark – perhaps even deliberately kept there – to come to the place where Francis is now.

We can speculate all we want, but we are not as knowledgeable as we think. Perhaps all of the commenters who really don’t know anything should stay quiet and not add to the noise. Listening and watching carefully may be what is required at the moment, for most of us.

 

[bullish1]

I find this absolutely preposterous. If he did do those things, you think he would be the best man to fix it? So I guess McCarrick is a great choice to head up a committee on how to stop abuses with seminarians, and perhaps Bernard Law, if he was still alive, should head up an investigation on how to stop shifting priests accused of abuse from one parish to another?

Calm down and re read the post. I said he “might” be. I did not say he was my choice, nor did I say he was the “best” choice. What I said was perhaps a better scenario than a power vacuum and cat fight played out in the Vatican. I posited that admission, penance and change could be enough. I assume that you read in haste. I am definitely in the camp of zero tolerance of this in the future. I will continue to strive for what I believe to be a Catholic response.

Peter denied the Lord, three times. Christ not only forgave him but used him. I am looking for ways that the Lord is using this crises for the greater good.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Bishop Barron in his video only dealt with Vigano in the last half of his talk.

But he said several things worth noting:

1. We should not be passive. We need to let our voices be heard.
2. He (like the USCCB) advocated the Vatican setting up an investigative team, led by lay people who are experts in the field, and giving them complete access to Vatican records.
3. He felt some of Vigano’s claims were true, some needed to be investigated more thoroughly. He pointed out that if a commission had been established before this, Vigano would have been a key witness. He’s simply given his testimony before the establishment of a commission.
4. One of his final points is something no one has mentioned. “The closer we are to truth, the closer we are to Christ.” Sounds good to me.

 

[pnewton]

Your actually missing the whole point. The problem is in the way the Church is set up. We don’t know that Pope Francis is guilty of anything at this point. Let’s for arguments sake say that it comes out the allegations against him turn out to be true. What then? There is no way to remove him. Your answer to this problem is

No, I get the point. I do not agree. Your argument is anti-catholic.

There have been very bad Pope’s in history. God obviously let’s them act that way on free will so why would God remove them? It makes no sense.

What you mean is that it makes no sense to you. Did the betrayal of Judas and the denial of Peter make sense to you? Does children dying of cancer make sense to you? The answer God gives to all in why the Catholic Church is “set up” like it is can be found in the book of Job.

I did not call the founding father “wicked.” That is your word. I said the were Deists and Humanists. I thought that was known. The point is, they set up a secular government based on a philosophy similar to what you are saying. Whether it works well or not, remains to be seen. But it is not Christian. It is not what the Bible teaches. It is not what Jesus did. That is the difference. Peter denied Jesus at the most important time, yet he remained to do the job he was given. The most Pope Francis has been accused of (and tried already in the media and here it seems), is an error in judgment, not denying Jesus.

The secular world is hardly a good example. Clinton, Bush, Obama, and now Trump, have all had people who clamored for their impeachment, based on what their enemies have said. Catholics here need to put this way of thinking behind them. This is not how the Church works.

 

[TMC]

The fact that that supposed leaders of the Church are focusing on how to use this crisis to achieve their political goals, instead of focusing on reforming the Church to resolve the actual problem, is sickening. It is also one of the best pieces of evidence for the need for true reform.

 

[pnewton]

It is also one of the best pieces of evidence for the need for true reform.

With all that has happened since 2002, and all the changes made, I continue to ask what more can be done than has been done?

 

[epostle1]

The Pope will survive because EX-nuncio’s
letter has Richard Sipe mentioned 3X. Sipe is
an enemy of the Church. Here’s proof:

PAT ROBERTSON LECTURES CATHOLIC CHURCH

**[PAT ROBERTSON HOSTS CHURCH CRITIC]

(http://pat%20robertson%20hosts%20church%20critic/)**

Ex-nuncio calls Cardinal Wuerl a liar in the letter
What we need to know about Cardinal Wuerl
RIGHT-WING NUTS RIP CARDINAL WUERL – Catholic League
Prayer to St. Michael should be reinstated into
the closing liturgy as it once was.

 

[epostle1]

The Pope has low friends in high places. I trust the Pope…

 

[TMC]

With all that has happened since 2002, and all the changes made, I continue to ask what more can be done than has been done?

I hope you are not serious. There have been some changes, true, but they have been modest, at best. Even those modest reforms have been resisted in many dioceses. It is also perfectly clear that senior leaders in the Church remain culpable for both direct crimes and for covering up and enabling crimes. What more can be done? How about honesty, transparency, and a real attempt at reform and reconciliation?

 

[OneSheep]

While I am glad that the Church is making an effort to expose scandal, abuse, and corruption, I cannot express enough how disappointed I am in Bishop Barron’s video on the topic.

1. To imply that there is some heresy against dogma by anyone else in the Church is uncharitable and a matter of opinion.
2. To assume that Vigano is telling the truth, when Vigano has long had an anti-Francis agenda, is extremely unwise.
3. To say that anything happening in the Church hierarchy is because of satan is giving power where there is none. We have only one God.

First and foremost, we do not know the whole story. In addition, the call for resignation, as well as the accusations, are coming from a man who is at odds with Pope Francis. Vigano means well, but it does not appear that he has forgiven. It is possible that his own recollection is stained with resentment.

Let us remember that we can judge a man’s actions by his fruits. The fruits of Vigano’s words are not communion, but discord. The fruits of his words are not forgiveness, but resentment.

We can call on all fellow Catholics to forgive Archbishop Vigano.

 

[ucfengr]

Reading some of the posts, one could be forgiven for thinking the biggest victim in the latest child sex abuse scandal is Pope Francis…