Pope Francis Must Resign: Archbishop Vigano

[MapleLeaf1]

So, say your friend is an abuser, and you don’t believe the evidence until one day it becomes overwhelming beyond a doubt, and you’re the one who is to act. You place sanctions of some kind on him. Fine. I accept that to a point. Now, let’s assume one of the people who warned you about it comes forward and says they warned you and you did nothing(and let’s assume for the moment that it’s true). What would you do? Refuse to comment and downplay his credibility? Let your friends insult the guy and you sit happily off to the side and let it happen? I would hope that under your scenario the Pope would at least take some responsibility.

 

[OraLabora]

Well he did do something. Francis stripped McCarrick of his red hat.

Not soon enough? Perhaps, perhaps not. John Paul II did not act at all on Marcial Maciel. It was Benedict XVI who punished him. Yet John Paul II was still a great pope and now a saint.

But it’s wrong to say Pope Francis did not act. He did.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Well he did do something. Francis stripped McCarrick of his red hat.

After allegedly removing previous sanctions.

When the matter became public knowledge, and McCarrick was identified with criminal activity, Pope Francis acted. The question at hand is whether or not Pope Francis walked back previous sanctions due to friendship or ideological agreement, and whether he ignored evidence that McCarrick should be held at arms length and instead welcomed his advice.

 

[MapleLeaf1]

He didn’t do anything as a result of the warning, though which is what was being alleged.

John Paul II never lived to see Maciel convicted. While it doesn’t excuse inaction, this means the situations are incomparable, as JP2 never had the chance to respond to criticism after it was known that he was in the wrong.

Removing the red hat is beside the point. I’m talking about his reaction to the letter, not the news.

 

[OraLabora]

The question at hand is whether or not Pope Francis walked back previous sanctions due to friendship or ideological agreement

Well given that I was criticized for questioning Vigano’s motives, perhaps we could apply the same standard to Pope Francis and do the Catholic thing: take the charitable course and not assume at the outset that his motives were less than honourable.

While it doesn’t excuse inaction, this means the situations are incomparable

My point was not that the situations were identical. It was the possibility that a pope had difficulty accepting that a friend was not all that he thought he was; on this point the situations are perhaps similar.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Well given that I was criticized for questioning Vigano’s motives, perhaps we could apply the same standard to Pope Francis and do the Catholic thing: take the charitable course and not assume at the outset that his motives were less than honourable.

I agree completely. That is a separate matter from whether or not he acted appropriately, and whether or not he should step down. Someone can have every good intention in the world and still be a poor leader that shouldn’t be trusted with authority.

 

[pnewton]

Never mind if the allegations are true…let’s attack the messenger, let’s impugn his motives, let’s speculate on a conspiracy, let’s focus on politics.

No, not “never mind if the allegations are true.” Understanding the motive is not attacking the messenger. It is part of investigating these allegations to determine truth. Cardinal Wuerl has denied knowing anything about this. Would you not think his motives might have bearing on his statements? Part of untangling contradictory statements is understanding motives and bias.

 

[graciew]

According to Monsgr Vigano ,Mc Carrick receives canonical sanctions
( Pope Benedict had imposed on Cardinal McCarrick sanctions similar to those now imposed on him by Pope Francis: the Cardinal was to leave the seminary where he was living, he was forbidden to celebrate [Mass] in public, to participate in public meetings, to give lectures, to travel, with the obligation of dedicating himself to a life of prayer and penance.)

He writes this then:

Pope Benedict’s same dispositions were then also communicated to me by the new Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, Cardinal Marc Ouellet, in November 2011, in a conversation before my departure for Washington, and were included among the instructions of the same Congregation to the new Nuncio.

In turn, I repeated them to Cardinal McCarrick at my first meeting with him at the Nunciature. The Cardinal, muttering in a barely comprehensible way, admitted that he had perhaps made the mistake of sleeping in the same bed with some seminarians at his beach house, but he said this as if it had no importance."

And six months later,representing Pope Benedict comes the Gala ,he gives Mc Carrick an award and tells him everyone loves him so much…and what you can see in the video.

Something doesn’t fit there.
And if there were canonical sanctions, wouldn’t they be at least written at least and be sort of " published " or " written" available for them to have access to anywhere?
I do not know. So much of the letter is sort of based on what one tells the other…

 

[Ghosty1981]

Cardinal Wuerl has denied knowing anything about this.

It’s worth pointing out that, if this indeed is Cardinal Wuerl’s claim, it has already been contradicted by the Diocese of Washington.

I believe Wuerl’s denial was much more measured and couched in “legalese”, to the effect that he did not receive any documentation about the sanctions against McCarrick. I don’t know if documentation would be expected to be given in this case, as McCarrick (as a fellow Bishop and Cardinal) wasn’t under Wuerl’s jursidiction despite residing in Washington.

 

[pnewton]

Would you be in favor of the following suggestions of the Bishop?

1,2, have been done. 3,5 is too vague and subjective. 4 is goofy. 6 is nothing something I have knowledge of.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t know if documentation would be expected to be given in this case, as McCarrick (as a fellow Bishop and Cardinal)

If not, then that is one area that can be addressed and corrected, though it was Pope Benedict that failed to give such notice, assuming a mountain of assumptions.

 

[Ghosty1981]

And if there were canonical sanctions, wouldn’t they be at least written at least and be sort of " published " or " written" available for them to have access to anywhere?

First off, we don’t know if there were “canonical sanctions”. I don’t believe Vigano used such language. It may have been more of a private and penitential matter. Second, Vigano has said that there is documentation of some matters available from the Nunciature and the Vatican; we haven’t seen those documents yet.

Finally, private censure wouldn’t necessarily be made public in any way, any more than your penances are published by the priest you confess to. McCarrick was sanctioned, and these sanctions were apparently enacted in at least some cases (he was forced to move from the seminary, and his meetings with seminarians were cancelled at the direction of Vigano during Wuerl’s tenure in Washington).

An award honoring the achievements of McCarrick does not go against Vigano’s claims. It is important to remember that the claims against McCarrick did not involve criminal activity, and were not a public matter per se. We honor sinners for the good they do all the time; the question is whether or not we should take their councel.

 

[Ghosty1981]

If not, then that is one area that can be addressed and corrected, though it was Pope Benedict that failed to give such notice, assuming a mountain of assumptions.

Pope Benedict did give notice as needed, via his Nuncios. That much has been confirmed by the Diocese of Washington. McCarrick was removed from his seminary residence during Sambi’s time as Nuncio, and at least one scheduled meeting with seminarians was cancelled by Wuerl at Vigano’s request.

 

[graciew]

It does take time for me to look up and quote for you.
I am quoting from the letter. " canonical sanctions "is there.
Please read the Testimony, it is impossible to discuss in the air,Ghosty.

 

[pnewton]

I find speculation to be useless, from our point of view. There were a lot of people that had been removed from the curia after Pope Francis took over. It is only the natural bias of all people that equate homosexuality with progressive clergy. If history has taught us nothing is that people are not categories and conservatives can be involved in homosexual scandals as well.

 

[pnewton]

First off, we don’t know if there were “canonical sanctions”. I don’t believe Vigano used such language. It may have been more of a private and penitential matter.

And if that were the case, it is more likely that Pope Francis did not know of them, or that they were dated, that is not permanent, from the start. This is why stuff is written down and homo sapiens developed writing. I operate under a rule, that it something is not written down, it didn’t happen, meaning, it is not actionable.

 

[Ghosty1981]

It does take time for me to look up and quote for you.
I am quoting from the letter. " canonical sanctions "is there.
Please read the Testimony, it is impossible to discuss in the air,Ghosty.

You’re right. It is in a different portion of the letter than I was looking at. I don’t know what kind of paper trail such sanctions would leave, but Vigano has said that the relevant documents are with Nunciature and the Vatican.

 

[Ghosty1981]

And if that were the case, it is more likely that Pope Francis did not know of them, or that they were dated, that is not permanent, from the start. This is why stuff is written down and homo sapiens developed writing. I operate under a rule, that it something is not written down, it didn’t happen, meaning, it is not actionable.

Right, which is why we want to know what documents the Nuncio’s office and the Vatican have. The ball is in their court.

 

[graciew]

I don’t know what kind of paper trail such sanctions would leave,

This is a big question,at least for me as I read .
The only evidence there is ,is kind of " oral tradition".
I am starting to wonder if they even existed. And I am not speaking of bad faith,but that in all this" he said"," I said",those sanctions did not become effective ( How exactly they become effective,I do not know…). But this is me,and it is irrelevant to the facts.

 

[KJW5551]

I believe Wuerl’s denial was much more measured and couched in “legalese”, to the effect that he did not receive any documentation about the sanctions against McCarrick

Exactly. It’s funny, they say everybody knew…it was an open secret…they had to “hide the handsome ones” when he visited the seminary…yet no one in any positions of leadership has had the guts to come out and say they knew. Preposterous.