Pope Francis Must Resign: Archbishop Vigano

  • Thread starter Thread starter TigerLily-1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OneSheep said:
There is the option that Pope Francis did not know of McCarrick’s history, but there is also the option that Pope Francis did know his history, but fully believed in McCarrick’s repentance and commitment to avoiding sin, that the “medicinal” sanctioning had done its work.
Click to expand...
I think he should have known not to reappoint someone with Mc’Carrick’s history if he’d known any if it.
 
Last edited:
Beyond Vigano, I have seen very few calls for resignation or assumtions of guilt. Those are more broad brushes imo
 
What investigation? That’s what we hope and pray for. After several days of silence from the Holy See, I am becoming increasingly skeptical if it will occur. I think three weeks have passed since the US Bishops first requested one. Should take this long to at least say it’s going to happen
 
bullish1 said:
So now it is only credible unless journalists are absent?
Click to expand...
Of course not. But the man sent out a letter and disappeared. Going through the same journalist that helped draft and deliver the letter is an extra layer behind which his testimony is to be evaluated. One person does not get on a witness stand and testify as to what another thinks or does. Such testimony is considered inadmissible.

Maybe AB Vigano has valid reasons for acting like he does and will make himself available to be faced by the one he accused, as justice would demand, at a later date. That’s fine, but then Pope Francis should be give the same time to consider his response. AB Vigano sat on this information five years, and release this letter a month after Pope Francis removed McCarrick from the cardinate. Yet he is condemned for not giving a response the day of its release, and it has only been a week.

This must not turn into a witch hunt or a lynch mob. Is a little patience too much to ask for?
 
Last edited:
tafan2 said:
What investigation? That’s what we hope and pray for. After several days of silence from the Holy See, I am becoming increasingly skeptical if it will occur. I think three weeks have passed since the US Bishops first requested one. Should take this long to at least say it’s going to happen
Click to expand...
This is what I have been wondering too. I feel like the release of the Vigano testimony has actually decreased the chances of an investigation because if his allegations are true, or even partially true, then such an investigation could implicate the Pope, or at least some of his closest allies (Wuerl I think would definitely go down at the very least).

The Vatican and Pope Francis may not be very eager to uncover more about McCarrick or the U.S. situation in general if the wrong people would fall under fire. At this point the delay is getting to be quite lengthy so I can’t think of why they would be dragging their feet - the cynical side of me says maybe they’re scrambling to burn all of their papers before they start.
 
I have been following this thread since the beginning, and I disagree, strongly.
 
FYI - Cardinal diNardo is flying to Rome to request a papal audience about this crisis. In other news, the National Review Board is calling for lay leadership in investigating abuses, as well as reminding us that the Charter for Protecting Children was always meant to be a living document.

http://usccb.org/news/2018/18-144.cfm

This is how the world works, with all it imperfections, when good people are trying their best. The Charter has helped to drastically reduce child abuse. Now we have a Cardinal who is alleged to abuse seminarians. They too need protecting. More to the point, the need to have an investigation independent of those influenced by previous friendship, or animosity.

If a friend of the Pope came out with a statement similar in nature to the one AB Vigano made explaining how he knew nothing of these sanctions or McCarrick’s homosexuality it would not be accepted. So why is a letter so full of resentment and anger from past slights accepted? Wouldn’t the better course be to accept this letter only as a starting point and withhold judgement?
 
tafan2 said:
But the letter is credible, it can be verified for it’s truthfulness (indeed Vigano told us where to find the documents)
Click to expand...
There are also verifiable untruths in it. There is the question of subjectivity as well. If this testimony was given on a witness stand, even a bad lawyer could have a lot to work with. The accusation is worthy of investigation, but the letter itself raises questions about both Pope Francis and the author of the letter.
 
We use it to mean “stingy” but it’s also what we call a wart. It could be different in other Spanish speaking countries. Sometimes word meanings vary from country to country. Kind of like US and Australia.

Full disclosure, I base this mainly on the way my parents spoke Spanish at home. I was born in Latin America but raised in the US from a young age. Don’t remember much of my country of birth. My husband is from a different Latin American country and sometimes he teases me about certain words. What was the context the word was used in?
 
Last edited:
I’m Sicilian American. In Sicilian dialect it could mean cheap or stingy. Or it could mean “poor” like, “poor baby”. I think in some Spanish speaking areas they use, “pobrecito” in the same way.

Same in Sicilian for meschino.

Sorry for the sidebar.
 
I am not assuming any of it is true or false, I said it’s truthfulness could be verified. You wording seems to imply you are assuming parts of it are untrue and that can be verified. Examples?
 
Whether or not there’s an investigation makes very little difference in the long run. Scandals come, scandals go. Popes and cardinals come, popes and cardinals go. Some are virtuous and holy, some are corrupt and act immorally. Can’t say it makes all that much difference in my life.
And as far as public perception, who cares?
 
Last edited:
OneSheep said:
What the whole investigation is going to boil down to is why Pope Francis trusted McCarrick. There is the option that Pope Francis did not know of McCarrick’s history, but there is also the option that Pope Francis did know his history, but fully believed in McCarrick’s repentance and commitment to avoiding sin, that the “medicinal” sanctioning had done its work.
Click to expand...
So when the reporter asked whether Pope Francis had been told about McCarrick years ago…he needed time to THINK about it? McCarrick had been removed from public ministry a month prior.

I understand that the Pope does not need to answer to any man…he is above us all. However, Pope Francis has been very vocal about transparency and wanting to heal the wounds of victims. The Church is hemorrhaging and Pope Francis would rather us speculate and tear each other apart even more?
OneSheep said:
In Vigano’s call for Pope Francis’ resignation, he has appointed himself both jury and judge. In the U.S., a person is presumed innocent until found guilty, and Vigano’s approach is not only un-American, but uncharitable and unChristian as well.
Click to expand...
Vigano made the accusations and called for the resignation to honor the zero tolerance policy Pope Francis espouses. Does it make sense that words are useless…children follow the example of their Papa?
 
Interview with a Swiss bishop, interesting to get the perspectives of non-Americans:

Loading…

www.catholicworldreport.com
The fact that Pope Francis does not want to say a single word about them is a classic non-denial. Lying, of course, is completely out of the question.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Hi F-Marturana!
I used google translate for.the letter. “Mezquino"came out as " narrow” ,which had nothing to do.
Mezquino means stingy( as Pollitos said),mean,like when you do not share and you want it all for you.
It isn t a word we would use that much but ,more elderly persons,yes.
“Pobrecito…” is an expression we use like “Poor person…poor soul” ,compassionately.
 
Last edited:
J
“OraLabora said:
A monk I know well says that some times a canonical punishment has a time limit. One example he mentioned that he knew about, was for 3 years. How do we know that isn’t the case with McCarrick?
Click to expand...

I don’t, although I was not referring to McCarrick really. I was talking about past instances where the Pope lessened the punishments of accused abusers and had it blow up in his face.

However, I would ask what the conditions are for a time limit? I would think that the nature of the offense would inform that. And I think it would be particularly short sighted to give a time-limited sanction for such a serious, serial behavior. And there is also zero evidence that it would have been a time-sensitive sentence.
 
In this article Bishop Eleganti states, ”James Martin, speaking at the World Meeting of Families, called for the Church to equate homosexuality with heterosexuality to the fullest extent and to admit homosexuals to all ecclesiastical ministries and offices without further ado," and later says, “The attempts to rewrite the traditional doctrine that regards homosexual acts as disordered in themselves, and therefore forbids them, are conspicuous. Pope Francis is surrounded by cardinals and advisors who are headed in this direction and openly support James Martin.”

So there you go. It’s inevitable. One thing’s for sure, you and I have no say in it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top