M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
Honestly, I do not know what to say. Wow.
Church defintely needs to be about prayer and fasting.
Church defintely needs to be about prayer and fasting.
It is not the first time we read news and then have to readjust a whole lot of it,Magdalena Rita.Honestly, I do not know what to say. Wow.
That this is “extraordinary” is an understatement.Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò (Edward Pentin Photo)
| AUG. 25, 2018
Ex-Nuncio Accuses Pope Francis of Failing to Act on McCarrick’s Abuse
In a written testimony, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò claims Pope Francis withdrew sanctions against Archbishop Theodore McCarrick.
Edward Pentin
In an extraordinary 11-page written testament, a former apostolic nuncio to the United States has accused several senior prelates of complicity in covering up Archbishop Theodore McCarrick’s allegations of sexual abuse, and has claimed that Pope Francis knew about sanctions imposed on then-Cardinal McCarrick by Pope Benedict XVI but chose to repeal them.
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, 77, who served as apostolic nuncio in Washington D.C. from 2011 to 2016, said that in the late 2000s, Benedict had “imposed on Cardinal McCarrick sanctions similar to those now imposed on him by Pope Francis” and that Viganò personally told Pope Francis about those sanctions in 2013.
Archbishop Viganò said in his written statement, simultaneously released to the Register and other media, (see full text below) that Pope Francis “continued to cover” for McCarrick and not only did he “not take into account the sanctions that Pope Benedict had imposed on him” but also made McCarrick “his trusted counselor.” Viganò said that the former archbishop of Washington advised the Pope to appoint a number of bishops in the United States, including Cardinals Blase Cupich of Chicago and Joseph Tobin of Newark.
Archbishop Viganò, who said his “conscience dictates” that the truth be known as “the corruption has reached the very top of the Church’s hierarchy,” ended his testimony by calling on Pope Francis and all of those implicated in the cover up of Archbishop McCarrick’s abuse to resign. . .
Only two of McCarrick’s known victims were children. Dozens (or more) were young adults over 18. How could the latter cases possibly be a child abuse problem?I read all 11 pages. Nowhere is a distinction made between homosexual activity between consenting and free adults, sex involving a misuse of power, and sex with minors. This leads me to think that the former Nuncio does not understand the difference. That is as scandalous as the things he condemns. Further, it insults the victims by telling them a falsehood about why they were abused. They were not abused because their abusers were homosexuals. They were abused because their abusers were child abusers or misusers of power. You can be heterosexual or homosexual and do those evil things. Blaming homosexuality is a calumny and harmful to Catholics and others who are homosexual.
Two sounds like a lot to me.Only two of McCarrick’s known victims were children. Dozens (or more) were young adults over 18. How could the latter cases possibly be a child abuse problem?
Okay, didn’t realize I was sounding that upset with my little “wow”. I am stunned but not surprised.…let us calm down.
The earth won t spin faster no matter how hard we try …
So you’re saying that McCarrick was a pedophile who just happened to sexually assault adult men as a “side thing”?Two sounds like a lot to me.
No I am saying what I have said? What is it with CAF that people want to put words in my mouth?So you’re saying that McCarrick was a pedophile who just happened to sexually assault adult men as a “side thing”?
OK, reading back, I missed the phrase “or abusers of power” in your original post. My bad. I think we still disagree, but we do agree about this not being MERELY a matter of the homosexuality of the prelate.They were not abused because their abusers were homosexuals. They were abused because their abusers were child abusers or misusers of power.