Pope Francis Must Resign: Archbishop Vigano

  • Thread starter Thread starter TigerLily-1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
  • Why were Benedict XVI’s purported sanctions against McCarrick never made public, and given only in the form of a private instruction?
  • Why were the purported sanctions not properly enforced after they were ordered?
  • What role did Cardinal Bertone play in the execution of Benedict’s order (in his testimony, Archbishop Vigano asserts that the cardinal had obstructed it)?
Click to expand...
www.ncregister.com

Further Questions Emerge About Benedict XVI’s Sanctions on McCarrick

Despite the high probability Benedict did impose sanctions or disciplinary measures against McCarrick, it appears the attitude was to ignore his willingness to flout them.
www.ncregister.com www.ncregister.com
 
gracepoole said:
If he enforced them, why was McCarrick not abiding by any restrictions? It was Vigano’s job to ensure he did.
Click to expand...
McCarrick wasn’t under house arrest. He made his own plans and flaunted authority. In instances where McCarrick could be directly stopped, as when arranging meetings with Washington seminarians, Vigano had these meetings cancelled by the diocese. This is a matter of record.
 
And then, of course, there’s the fact that if this was all private/super secret, there was no formal decree for Francis to reverse:
But, as mentioned in the Register’s initial report on the testimony on Aug. 2, the Pope Emeritus was “unable to remember very well” how the matter was handled, according to the source. As far as Benedict could recall, the source said the instruction was essentially that McCarrick should keep a “low profile.” There was “no formal decree, just a private request.”
Click to expand...
How we’ve moved from questions that still swirl around this topic to demanding a papal resignation is bizarre.
 
Ghosty1981 said:
40.png
gracepoole:
If he enforced them, why was McCarrick not abiding by any restrictions? It was Vigano’s job to ensure he did.
Click to expand...
McCarrick wasn’t under house arrest. He made his own plans and flaunted authority. In instances where McCarrick could be directly stopped, as when arranging meetings with Washington seminarians, Vigano had these meetings cancelled by the diocese. This is a matter of record.
Click to expand...
And if this were the case, wouldn’t it have made sense for Benedict to issue a formal decree against McCarrick? This stuff honestly doesn’t make Francis look bad – it makes his predecessors look abysmal.
 
gracepoole said:
And then, of course, there’s the fact that if this was all private/super secret, there was no formal decree for Francis to reverse:
Click to expand...
That was Benedict’s choice. It has no bearing on Vigano. We still have to see the documents to know what the sanctions entailed.
 
Last edited:
gracepoole said:
It does impact, however, Vigano’s conclusions about Francis’ guilt.
Click to expand...
Not really. He stated that he made Francis aware of McCarrick’s file. Whether or not Francis knew about the sanctions can’t be known for certain at this point, regardless of whether they were public or private. Even if documentation exists we don’t know if Francis read it.

Vigano thinks that Francis knew enough to rein in McCarrick. That’s his prerogative.
 
I don’t think I missed the point: You think that Fr Martin would not be against an investigation. But you have no reason to thing such a thing.
 
Ghosty1981 said:
40.png
gracepoole:
It does impact, however, Vigano’s conclusions about Francis’ guilt.
Click to expand...
Not really. He stated that he made Francis aware of McCarrick’s file. Whether or not Francis knew about the sanctions can’t be known for certain at this point, regardless of whether they were public or private. Even if documentation exists we don’t know if Francis read it.

Vigano thinks that Francis knew enough to rein in McCarrick. That’s his prerogative.
Click to expand...
Sure it is. But it’s problematic, to say the least, to claim that a “private request” made by Benedict was somehow reversed by Francis. How would one reverse a “private request”?
 
tafan2 said:
I don’t think I missed the point: You think that Fr Martin would not be against an investigation. But you have no reason to thing such a thing.
Click to expand...
You’ve missed the point because 1) you’ve ignored everything that Martin said, and 2) you are guilty of the same charge you’re leveling against me. You also have no evidence that Martin is against investigating.
 
gracepoole said:
Sure it is. But it’s problematic, to say the least, to claim that a “private request” made by Benedict was somehow reversed by Francis. How would one reverse a “private request”?
Click to expand...
By allowing McCarrick free rein where he didn’t have it previously. Even the “private request” was actionable, as attested to by the Diocese of Washington.
 
Last edited:
Because of the super secret request? If it’s super secret enough that no one local even knew about it, how effective was it supposed to be?
 
I never said I think he is against an investigation. Never. I just ask for a source to back up your claim. I made no statement, just asked a question, so I cannot be guilty of the same charge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top