C
Canvas
Guest
No, he is not one of the people who were abused, but he is taking the blame for all kinds of evil that happened while other people were running the show.
- Status
K
kyrie03
Guest
I’m not sure what heresy is suggested. However,the Church belongs to God, not to any man. The Pontiff is only the visible representative of Christ on earth. The reason Christ established the papacy is to safeguard the truths of the Church as He taught His Apostles and have been passed down unchanged through their successors. Should a new doctrine be proposed, or an old doctrine appear to be changed, it would be quite easy for those who know the truths of the Catholic Faith to recognize the error.
How did you determine Vignano has an anti-Francis agenda? Many bishops have come out and agreed with his testimony and are also calling for an investigation. Do you realize that Vignano, as Nuncio, was precisely the one in the best position to see the records and cover ups.
Satan WAS given power…that’s what led to Christ’s crucifixion and death! And, according to Church teaching, Satan will be given power again to war against the Bride of Christ, the Church. Christ is the head and as He suffered crucifixion, so too, will His Body, the Church, suffer the same fate.
K
kyrie03
Guest
Here are some suggestions addressing what more can be done:
www.ncregister.com
Reflection on the ‘Testimony’ of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò
Ruthlessness and transparency in detecting and in confessing the evils in the life of the Church will help to initiate an efficient process of spiritual and moral purification and renewal.
www.ncregister.com
- That the Holy See and the Pope himself will start to cleanse uncompromisingly the Roman Curia and the episcopate from homosexual cliques and networks.
- That the Pope will proclaim unambiguously the Divine doctrine about the grievously sinful character of homosexual acts.
- That there will be issued peremptory and detailed norms, which will prevent the ordination of men with a homosexual tendency.
- That the Pope restores the purity and unambiguity of the entire Catholic doctrine in teaching and preaching.
- That there will be restored in the Church through papal and episcopal teaching and through practical norms the ever valid Christian ascesis: the exercises of fasting, of corporal penitence, of abnegations.
- That there will be restored in the Church the spirit and the praxis of reparation and expiation for sins committed.
- That there will start in the Church a securely guaranteed selection process of candidates to the episcopacy, who are demonstrably true men of God; and that it would be better to leave the dioceses several years without a bishop rather than to appoint a candidate who is not a true man of God in prayer, in doctrine and in moral life.
- That there will start in the Church a movement especially among cardinals, bishops and priests to renounce any compromise and any flirt with the world.
Ruthlessness and transparency in detecting and in confessing the evils in the life of the Church will help to initiate an efficient process of spiritual and moral purification and renewal. Before condemning others, every clerical officeholder in the Church, regardless of rank and title, should ask himself in the presence of God, if he himself had in some way covered sexual abuses. Should he discover himself guilty, he should confess it publicly, for the Word of God admonishes him: “Be not ashamed to acknowledge your guilt” (Sirach 4:26). For, as Saint Peter, the first Pope, wrote, “the time has come for the judging, starting with the house (the Church) of God” (1 Peter 4:17).
+Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana
K
kyrie03
Guest
What are the fruits of Cardinal McCarrick? There was an attempt to restrict him by Pope Benedict. He disobeyed. It doesn’t appear that Pope Francis judged the “fruits” in the same manner as his predecessor prompting the bombshell testimony of Vigano.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Except that Vigano was replaced by Pope Francis after setting the Pope up with someone whose agenda was unknown to the Pope.
Jesus was killed by people who did not know what they were doing. They wanted justice.
Evidence of this teaching?
O
OneSheep
Guest
Well, a mixture, just like Archbishop Vigano. His acts of violence against others are to be abhorred, and caused great damage. His acts of mercy are to be seen as coming from God.
There must have been some reason for Francis to trust the man. This is part of what we don’t know.
Our Lord knows who would be the best person to fix it and it very well might be Pope Francis.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?
How preposterous was it that our Lord Christ Jesus made and kept Peter as the head of the Church even though our Lord knew that Peter would deny him three times?
If someone like Saint Peter can be redeemed after running away from the Lord at the time of His passion, I’m sure Pope France could also be redeemed despite any grave errors he might have made and make the necessary changes to the Church so the Church can recover from this great scandal.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
I suppose to imply that some bishops and priests have sexually abused their victims is also “uncharitable and a matter of opinion?” Seems to me that if sexual abuse by some clergy is a fact, heresy against dogma by others might be more than just an uncharitable matter of opinion, and an allegation that we ought to recognize as, at least, possible.
To assume Vigano is not telling the truth would be at least as “extremely unwise.”
OneSheep: To say that anything happening in the Church hierarchy is because of satan is giving power where there is none.
Jesus: Simon, Simon, listen! Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers. (Luke 22:31-2)
Only if his words turn out to be false, which has not been determined. So, until then, whether the fruits of his words are as you say isn’t a settled matter. It certainly doesn’t depend upon your opinions of the man.
We can do so once it has been determined that he did something wrong. Not until then, and not prior to knowing if he did. Your call is premature.
Last edited:
T
tseleehw
Guest
This from NCR: they are confirming that Pope Emeritus Benedict did not comment on or confirm Vigano’s testimony, but a source close to Benedict confirmed to them back in July that McCarrick was indeed sanctioned by Benedict when he was Pope.
www.ncregister.com
Archbishop Gänswein’s Comments Were Correct and We Stand By Our Reporting
The Register reported Aug. 25 that Benedict XVI had issued sanctions against then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick but we never stated that the Pope Emeritus confirmed — as alleged in The New York Times — all of Archbishop Viganò’s recent testimony on corruption in the Church.
www.ncregister.com
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
Yes, I am serious. The fact that no actions are mentioned, or come readily to mind, make my point. Words like “real” is used instead of anything concrete. Parishes in the United States are as honest and transparent as the law, and the mission of the Church, allows. Confession will never be open, nor will personnel files be made available on the internet.
I have one actual suggestion though. As it is, all dioceses are required to have a person to insure compliance with the Dallas Charter. My diocese requires a compliance person at the parish level. To the extent that this charter is followed, children are protected. I would add that it would be good for every diocese, and every organization not under a diocese, to be audited from someone at the national, or international (Vatican) level. Audits should be public. However, I do not think the public to be general intelligent enough to understand that a deficiency in an audit does not equate to child abuse or scandal. Maybe making the audits public would cause more problems. There are too many people that will not be happy with anything, as long as the Catholic Church exists.
O
OneSheep
Guest
This is illogical.
Perhaps. Best not make assumptions, which the Bishop appeared to do.
This is in reference to Amos 9:9-10. Jesus, as always, is presenting a new image of God, one of a Father who loves us unconditionally, rather than “destroying sinners by sword” which presents a rejecting image.
There are ways to raise objection without calling for resignation, which only feeds the extremists calling Pope Francis an “anti-Pope” and other preposterous perceptions.
If we hold something against Vigano we should forgive him, that is what Christ asks of us. If we hold something against Pope Francis, the same scripture applies.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
Recognizing a possibility is one thing. Avoiding rash judgement is another. Church doctrine:
Investigation and openness to new facts is how we keep from being blind. Avoiding rash judgement is how we practice charity at the same time.
P
pnewton
Guest
So their reporting was false, but they are standing by it? Every person that is added to this chain of “he said” and “I heard” is one more person that could distort the truth. Much has been said about the need to break up the power structure in the Church. Pope Francis’ papacy is marked by this very action, and it has made him a lot of detractors from clergy that like their pomp and power.
P
Peebo
Guest
Some Cardinals…and some here on CAF have been baying for the blood of Pope Francis ever since he was elected Pope because he wasn’t “conservative” enough…they want a return to a more rigorous pre-vatican 2…and lets not fool ourselves…much of these abuse cases stems from those days and before…lord knows how many years…or even centuries prior to vatican 2…when the clergy were a law unto themselves…that’s why these things festered unchecked…yet many of these conservatives want to return to those days…and they don’t care how they smear Pope Francis
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
“The Pope has a bigger agenda,” Cardinal Cupich said. “He’s got to get on with other things, of talking about the environment and protecting migrants and carrying on the work of the church. We’re not going to go down a rabbit hole on this.”
J
Jerzy
Guest
My reading is that they’re saying that it’s true that Pope Benedict didn’t confirm Vigano’s charges, and that it’s also true that Pope Benedict did confirm that he took action against McCarrick.
G
Ghosty1981
Guest
Actually, the secretary refuted a claim that the Register did not make, namely that Ratzinger had confirmed Vigano’s letter. The Register claimed that Ratzinger had previously confirmed (in some hazy manner) that he had privately censured McCarrick.
The Register’s claim is hazy and not clearly supported, but it wasn’t what the secretary was refuting.
EDIT: It’s worth pointing out that Vigano’s account of Papal sanctions has been backed up by Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, who worked for the Nuncio at the time the sanctions were imposed. So whether or not Ratzinger has spoken since the release of the letter, the substance of the claims about a sanction being handed down from the Pope is supported by the living man (other than Ratzinger) who would be in a position to know.
Last edited:
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
Archbishop Gänswein’s Comments Were Correct and We Stand By Our Reporting
The Register reported Aug. 25 that Benedict XVI had issued sanctions against then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick but we never stated that the Pope Emeritus confirmed — as alleged in The New York Times — all of Archbishop Viganò’s recent testimony on corruption in the Church.
www.ncregister.com
“Register fully stands by its reporting, drawn on sources close to the Pope Emeritus, that sanctions were issued by Benedict against McCarrick.”
P
pnewton
Guest
Interesting how the exact nature of these alleged sanctions are not known, even the year they happened. Could it be that something happened, but it unofficial? That might explain one discrepancy in AB Vigano’s letter. He seems quite sure about some details, but vague on others. That is the nature of how the mind works, at the best of times. One’s emotions and opinions can distort memory even more. There may a lot that is untrue in any testimony without consciously lying.
G
Ghosty1981
Guest
I have no Earthly idea how these matters are handled in the Vatican. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is no paper trail, but I also wouldn’t be surprised if there are records and letters discussing the matter.
I don’t find it credible that nobody else knew about the sanctions; Wuerl’s denials, when he knew full well that McCarrick suddenly left his longtime residence at the seminary, seem especially absurd. Hard to say who knew exactly what, however.
- Status