Pope Francis Must Resign: Archbishop Vigano

[Ghosty1981]

No. That is quite a stretch to say that has been “confirmed”. The more the Pope’s integrity is attacked the more I question the moral integrity and motive of the attackers, both here and in the press.

Go back and read their account from the time. It has changed completely.

The Press Office also said that Kim Davis was not given an audience:

"“Pope Francis met with several dozen persons who had been invited by the Nunciature to greet him as he prepared to leave Washington for New York City. Such brief greetings occur on all papal visits and are due to the Pope’s characteristic kindness and availability. The only real audience granted by the Pope at the Nunciature was with one of his former students and his family.”

Lombardi now contradicts the official account.

Finally, this is about the Vatican Press Office, not Pope Francis. They change his words as well.

 

[tafan2]

Even the official account has changed. One can use broad definition of terms and say the Vatican press office has not lied about the Kim Davis meeting. One cannot say they have not been intentionally misleading at times.

 

[Joe_5859]

Here is another summary of where things are at:

Benedict, Viganò, Francis and McCarrick: Where Things Stand on Nuncio’s Allegations| National Catholic Register

 

[kyrie03]

Interesting. So if they were private, then how do we know they were permanent, or that Pope Francis knew as much about them as AB Vigano thinks he did? This is why the Catholic Church actually keeps records.

According to Vigano, they were private because, "that was the decision of Pope Benedict”. His 11-page testimony details that he spoke personally with Pope Francis about a dossier the Conference of Catholic Bishops had “this thick” on McCarrick - and got no reaction.

The former papal nuncio to the U.S. responded to efforts in the media to question his testimony that Pope Francis covered-up for McCarrick while knowing of his reputation for sexual abuse of seminarians and priests. Viganó reiterated in the interview that he had spoken with McCarrick about the restrictions Benedict had put upon him, but that as nuncio he did not have authority to enforce those restrictions.

“I was not in the position of enforcing,” Viganó told LifeSiteNews, “especially because the measures (sanctions) given to McCarrick (were made) in a private way. That was the decision of Pope Benedict.”

Viganó said Pope Benedict made McCarrick’s sanctions private, perhaps “due to the fact that he (McCarrick) was already retired, maybe due to the fact that he (Benedict) was thinking he was ready to obey.”

> But, McCarrick, “certainly he didn’t obey ,” Viganó told LifeSiteNews.

AND…

Viganó, nuncio from October 2011 to April 2016, explained he was just beginning his role as the Pope’s representative at the time when each of the events in the various video clips edited together by CNS took place, and just learning the culture and hierarchy of his new assignment in the U.S .

Aside from just beginning in his mission, he said, the nuncio is not somebody who may enforce restrictions directly, especially with a cardinal, who is considered the superior. Such an enforcement would belong to someone in the position of Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, and McCarrick successor, said Viganó.

EXCLUSIVE: Viganó doubles down: McCarrick was restricted under Benedict, but ‘he didn’t obey’ | News | LifeSite

 

[kyrie03]

I do think too many people are using the word “lying” way too much, including AB Vigano. Charity should demand everyone look at the situation in a more favorable light until something definitive is known. There are still several ways both can be mostly right on the details, if not the conclusions.

Vigano not only swore that his testimony is true, he HAS facts: he gives names, dates, says who witnessed, and where to find corroborating documentation. He gave his testimony, followed by clarification interviews and memos. The facts show that someone is lying…and Vigano is the only one backing up his testimony with proof. He asks the journalists to request the 300 page documentation detailing corruption that was collected by 3 Cardinals for Pope Benedict, who instead of acting decided to resign and leave the affair to his successor. What ever happened to these records?

According to my informal count, 18 bishops have spoken about his testimony. Some say they know and find him trustworthy, at least 1 (Bp Morlino) says the allegations are credible and based on facts. https://madisondiocese.org/documents/2018/8/Statement - Bishop Morlino - 08-27-2018.pdf

Vigano’s version of events was corroborated a week ago by a former official in the Vatican embassy in Washington, Monsignor Jean-Francois Lantheaume , who told Catholic News Agency: 'Vigano said the truth. That is all."

Loading…

www.dailymail.co.uk

The wall of silence meeting journalists who are attempting to get the truth is impressive. If the Vatican continues to remain silent and dodge an investigation, it would imply they wish to hide the truth. NY Times says they reached out to every cardinal and bishop implicated by Vigano as knowing about sanctions against McCarrick - not one would respond.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/01/world/europe/pope-francis-benedict-mccarrick.html 2

 

[pnewton]

Vigano not only swore that his testimony is true, he HAS facts: he gives names, dates, says who witnessed, and where to find corroborating documentation.

“Facts” is a word used too casually around here. Testimony is never fact. Dates given in testimony, or not facts. The facts do not show someone is lying. This is the type of rash judgement that makes trial by the laity and the media so amateurish. The evidence indicates there is a discrepancy. That is all. I have never heard any one claim that either the Pope or the archbishop has an eidetic memory. The archbishop’s emotions ring through his letter. Emotion, age, agenda, and time can play havoc with recall, while the person knows he is right, even when he isn’t.

 

[kyrie03]

A fact is a statement that is consistent with objective reality or can be proven with evidence (Wiki definition)

Either AB Vigano told Pope Francis about McCarrick as he states, or he didn’t;.

Either Pope Francis was briefed on Kim Davis with the memo Vigano produced or he wasn’t

Someone is lying. An investigation and supporting documentation (such as Vigano’s memos, looking at documentation (Vigano says where to find and any documentation the Vatican would provide), and deposing those who were present would give facts that could be pieced together to get a clear picture as to the truth.

I’m not jumping to conclusions. I’m looking at the evidence given thus far and determining that Vigano’s testimony is consistent with objective reality. By all means, if there is evidence the Vatican can produce to disprove Vigano, I’m all ears.

 

[pnewton]

I’m not jumping to conclusions. I’m looking at the evidence given thus far and determining that Vigano’s testimony is consistent with objective reality. By all means, if there is evidence the Vatican can produce to disprove Vigano, I’m all ears.

I too am open to evidence, if it ever comes up, or I would be if I was the one responsible for judging what is known about the McCarrick affair, which thankfully, I am not.

 

[o_mlly]

I’m Byzantine, we have a different Liturgical cycle. Can you please be more specific? I’ve never read this in the Gospels.

Luke 20

The Role of the Disciples. 24 Then an argument broke out among themm about which of them should be regarded as the greatest. 25 He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those in authority over them are addressed as ‘Benefactors’; 26but among you it shall not be so. Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant.

Is this your understanding or are you quoting from elsewhere? I have never heard this.

A Cool Cardinal | Matthew Schmitz

Cardinal Blase Cupich pretends to be a friend to people who need a father.

www.firstthings.com

Imperatori-Lee traced the colonization of conscience back to an encyclical Pius X issued in 1906. “The infantilization of the laity has its historical roots in a view of laypeople as objects of clerical control: pay, pray and obey, or as Pius X notes in Vehementer Nos , ‘the right of the laity is to allow itself to be led.’”

 

[KJW5551]

http://m.ncregister.com/57943/d#.W5BW7kEpCEc

Reasonable.

 

[Cruciferi]

“It was a mistake for Archbishop Viganò to call for the resignation of Pope Francis”

• Yes, it was a huge mistake.

“The mistake that Benedict XVI made by abdicating in 2013”

• That wasn’t a mistake. That was his choice.

“It goes without saying that the spectacle of Archbishop Viganò saying that Cardinal Donald Wuerl “lies shamelessly,” only to have Archbishop Viganò’s detractors say that he is the real “liar,” does nothing for the mission of the Church.”

• Viganò needs lectured on how to act appropriately. Supporters of Pope Francis have every right to question the motives and actions of Viganò.

 

[Joe_5859]

Either AB Vigano told Pope Francis about McCarrick as he states, or he didn’t;.

To me, there is a difference between saying that McCarrick has a dossier “this thick” and explicitly saying that he is accused of seducing/abusing seminarians. I think what Vigano says he told Pope Francis could be exactly true, but it still wouldn’t mean that Pope Francis knew. Maybe Francis was predisposed not to trust what Vigano was saying and didn’t bother seeking out that dossier on McCarrick.

 

[toddy]

I keep faith and do as God’s will to enter heaven.

God never accept homosexuality.

I don’t want to get plague when God is angry either.
Asking Pope to resign is beyond our knowledge, virtue of obedience, Holy Catholic church! But it is from an archbishop.

IF it is an act of God then God will continue more.

Be prepare.

 

[pnewton]

Your English is a little stilted, the points diverse, but you put a lot of wisdom in a short post. As regards to both the papacy of Pope Francis, and this incident with Vigano, that fourth point is especially important. As Gamaliel said, "And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it—lest you even be found to fight against God.” (Acts 5:38-39) Or as Jesus told Paul, “It is hard to kick against the goads.”

 

[toddy]

Thanks, I will remember this gospel.

 

[bullish1]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1d2ec87297ee

A blast from the past. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Nothing but “crickets” has worked in the past.

Do some searching on Bishop Maccarone of Argentina for more on clergy who carried the favor of BP Bergolio. He was “framed” in to a gay photoshoot by a journalist and then protected by our zero tolerance Pope.

 

[tafan2]

When Francis was elected, the media’s default position, based on pure momentum of how they dealt with St JP II and Benedict XVI, was to attack him. That has certainly changed.

 

[KJW5551]

When Francis was elected, the media’s default position, based on pure momentum of how they dealt with St JP II and Benedict XVI, was to attack him.

It was?

Loading…

poy.time.com

 

[pnewton]

Garbage article:

But during most of the 14 years that Bergoglio served as archbishop of Buenos Aires, rights advocates say,

If I were to write an article about why President Trump needs to be impeached based on statements and reports from the DNC, would any think it journalism?

 

[Rubee]

Why wouldn’t he, given McCarrick had been sanctioned by a previous pope? What most troubles me about these things is how evident it is that even our highest clergy have become numb to them, so they don’t act with seriousness.