Pope Francis Must Resign: Archbishop Vigano

[gracepoole]

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.

You asked a question. I said “I don’t think.” No claims have been made. We both have no idea what Martin thinks, which is why it’s illegitimate for one of us to scream “You haven’t provided evidence!”

 

[gracepoole]

Martin’s advice:

First, while journalists have discredited large sections of the Vigano “testimony,” and while many charges have been revealed as baseless, there is one charge that journalists will not be able to uncover: Pope Francis’s knowledge and actions regarding the McCarrick case.

The faithful, as well as clergy and religious, are exceedingly confused about this question; a short and simple answer from the Pope or from the Vatican will help us move us ahead.

Second, dioceses and religious orders should open their abuse files to the public, rather than waiting until they are forced to do so. Otherwise, the church will face years, perhaps decades, of civic authorities slowly uncovering our secret crimes, sins and failings. Confession is not just about what you’re forced to reveal.

Third, lay leaders should investigate the McCarrick case. More importantly, lay leaders should be placed in charge of all review boards in dioceses and religious orders, if they are not already in charge. The system has proven that it cannot police itself.

Fourth, bishops found guilty of abuse, or of covering it up, must be removed from their posts as soon as possible. Perhaps just as important, when bishops resign, the Vatican must be clear about the reasons for their resignations.

Fifth, the widespread demonization within the church must end. It is a stumbling block to healing and disedifying to both Catholics and non-Catholics. Social media has played a malign role. The stereotyping of whole groups (gays, celibates, bishops, liberals, conservatives) must end. Personal vilification must stop.

Sixth, public acts of penance from the hierarchy must take place. Letters and statements are, as we have seen, insufficient. The laity should decide what form these acts should take. Symbolic actions, as well as practical actions, matter here.

Seventh, both married men and women must be included in all levels of decision-making in the church—including heading Vatican congregations, reforming the Curia, helping to select bishops, etc.

Married men and women must also be included in all levels of leadership—including leadership in the church’s liturgical life, something of immense symbolic importance. Married priests and women deacons are a start.

Eighth, a thoroughgoing review of seminary formation, especially regarding education in human sexuality, must happen—again. There are still seminaries and religious orders where candidates are incapable of, or prevented from, discussing the most fundamental areas of their lives.

Ninth, clericalism must die. The system privileging the status of bishops and priests over that of lay people (and parents); that insists on an exaggerated deference for clergy and bishops, and that has functioned as a closed world, must be dismantled.

 

[tafan2]

First of all, I didn’t scream. Secondly, I was genuinely interested in why you said you thought he would support an investigation, I have been paying attention to all bishops and priests and prominent lay people who have called for an investigation since Aug 16th. I have a track record for that on this forum. If Fr Martin supported one, that would be great news to me. So i fell perfectly justified in asking for a source.
Third, if I say “I think that the moon is made of cheese”, just be cause I only said I thought it was the case, it is reasonable for others to question that belief, and if I have zero evidence for it, it is reasonable to say I have nothing to base it on. Just because I only said “I think” does not absolve me, in a puble forum, from the expectation of being able to back up my thoughts.

I think you are the one who has missed the point. Good day.

 

[gracepoole]

There remains a good deal of confusion here regarding the definition of a claim. Alas, it doesn’t seem that’s a problem that will be rectified in our discussion.

God bless.

 

[pnewton]

Anyone involved in the abuse/cover up needs to go in my opinion.

Fortunately for the Church, justice is more than collecting heads. At least statements like this remind me how impossible it is to try and please the world.

 

[gracepoole]

Elf01:

Anyone involved in the abuse/cover up needs to go in my opinion.

Fortunately for the Church, justice is more than collecting heads.

Maybe it’s the pessimist in me but I also wonder who would be left.

 

[pnewton]

Christ did not establish a ruling hierarchy. He commanded his disciples to minister, not rule.

I think you have an interesting point.

Acts 6 - So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3 Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4 and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”

The Church uses groundskeepers for yard work, accountants for bookkeeping, lawyers for lawwing (I don’t actually get this one), it would be no great leap to put administering discipline and oversight in the hands of people trained in management. Holy orders are not required for human resource work. I know priests have always overseen priests, but as the shortage of priests worsens, there will need to be more areas of lay involvement, and this is one.

 

[pnewton]

If I was taking odds, I would bet against it, but we will see.

 

[pnewton]

Seems that he is acting on behalf of Vatican communications to deflect what the Vatican considers attacks on Pope Francis by attacking Vigano.

So the Pope can be attacked by Vigano, but Vigano cannot be attacked? In addition to bring questions about Pope Benedicts lack of action, AB Vigano implicated himself in his letter, admitting to knowing all about this for years, but he spoke out only after Pope Francis too action to remove McCarrick as cardinal.

What I found dubious is this latest claim that the Pope knew all about the Kim Davis meeting. Everything else the Pope did during his US visit was aimed at not getting involved in politics, but somehow he agreed to meet one of the most political explosive person at that time? Over civil marriages, which the Church does not recognize anyway?

 

[KJW5551]

Maybe it’s the pessimist in me but I also wonder who would be left.

The 90% of good holy Bishops who has absolutely no part in any sort of coverups?

 

[KJW5551]

Fortunately for the Church, justice is more than collecting heads.

Yes, of course. But can you sit here and say that you want Bishops who covered up abuse to maintain their positions as the spiritual leaders of their flocks? They do have to go.

 

[kyrie03]

You’re offering an ad hominem attack against someone who pointed out that ad hominem attacks are problematic? Interesting.

Taken from Fr. Martin’s words you posted…

"Vigano’s testimony is being discredited hour by hour…former champions of the papacy rushed to attack, condemn and attempt to delegitimize Pope Francis."

“(They) immediately heaped scorn on Francis, called for his resignation, and publicly side with his accuser, based on unsubstantiated charges.”

"Many Catholics…viciously turned on a Pope they didn’t like, based on one disgruntled former nuncio’s 11-page, unsubstantiated screed."

“Some US bishops…(are) heedlessly inching us closer to the possibility of schism.”

“It was the weaponization of the abuse crisis…to advance their own ecclesial agenda.”

I observed that Fr. Martin’s words against Vigano and those who find him trustworthy, are attempting to deflect what Fr Martin termed as “vicious attacks” by viciously attacking others.

Do you disagree?

 

[pnewton]

Yes, of course. But can you sit here and say that you want Bishops who covered up abuse to maintain their positions as the spiritual leaders of their flocks? They do have to go.

I would say that depends. In this day and age, I think it very reasonable to assume that we have to have transparency and those who have deliberately ignore the guidelines set by the USCCB charter should have to go. Those that lie go. Those the break the law by failing to report abuse should go. I will go that far. However, I reserve the fact that there may have been bishops, especially in the past, who never lied, never failed to report criminal behavior they knew of, but may have erred in keeping priests they should not have kept. I do not see sacking a bishop for a past error in judgement based on the knowledge of human behavior at that time.

FYI, I think this all should apply whether the problem is an illegal act with a child, or an immoral act with an adult. Enforcing the law is not the mission of the Church. Protecting all the faithful, old and young, is.

 

[kyrie03]

Kim Davis was a conscientious objector to sign her name to what she rightly considers a sham marriage license.

Silly me thought that the Church was moving away from holding rigidly to laws and legitimizing one’s conscience to dictate how one ought/ought not act.

 

[pnewton]

I observed that Fr. Martin’s words against Vigano and those who find him trustworthy, are attempting to deflect what Fr Martin termed as “vicious attacks” by viciously attacking others.

You have a good observation. The use of “vicious” is itself a judgement, though the rest seems more factual. However, I note that the language use is tame compared to that AB Vigano used in his letter.

 

[pnewton]

Kim Davis was a conscientious objector to sign her name to what she rightly considers a sham marriage license.

Right, but she was much more, and it is that “more” that matters. I am not going to open up the pros and cons of here actions, but without a doubt, she was politically hot at the time, though if you think the Pope’s mission was to halt the homosexual agenda, then AB Vigano’s statement makes sense.

I think it good to remember where Pope Francis came from. He had priests and parishes in Argentina that ranged from socialist/liberationists, to nationalists. His various priests could be killed by other factions over political ideologies. Giving an audience to the current Republican media darling would not in his character. He took the path of limiting his involvement to areas of morality during his visit.

 

[kyrie03]

I think it very reasonable to assume that we have to have transparency and those who have deliberately ignore the guidelines set by the USCCB charter should have to go. Those that lie go. Those the break the law by failing to report abuse should go

Is it just criminal behavior covered by Dallas Charter that should be observed? That is meant to protect minors.

Do you know of any charter that punishes homosexual activity (not with minors)? Do you think bishops should be disciplined for turning a blind eye to homosexual activity that has been brought to their attention? Or have we moved beyond the out-dated warnings of numerous saints…Paul the Apostle, Basil, John Chrysostom, Peter Damien, Peter Canisius, Catherine of Siena, etc…

 

[kyrie03]

His upbringing may explain why he acts the way he does.

I observe that Pope Francis is allowing for the walls of morality to be battered without taking a clear stance to defend the walls.

 

[gracepoole]

gracepoole:

Maybe it’s the pessimist in me but I also wonder who would be left.

The 90% of good holy Bishops who has absolutely no part in any sort of coverups?

You are far more optimistic than I. 90%? That high? That seems…unlikely, given the waves of disclosures that keep coming.

 

[KJW5551]

You are far more optimistic than I. 90%? That high? That seems…unlikely, given the waves of disclosures that keep coming.

Remember that the problem is largely historical in nature; many of the bishops who did participate in cover ups are retired/deceased at this point. Also there are what, 150 dioceses in the U.S.? Not all had big sexual abuse cover ups.

Edit: I’d also guess that of the bishops appointed since the 2002 Dallas Charter approximately 0% of them need to resign. They take this stuff so seriously now it’s not even funny. In many dioceses there has not been even one single case of abuse since 2002.