Pope Francis Must Resign: Archbishop Vigano

  • Thread starter Thread starter TigerLily-1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tafan2 said:
I understand you post, but please note: this has not happened. One (McCarrick) has been exposed, not many. To say many of the Cardinals have done this seems like calumny at this time.
Click to expand...
Cardinals credibly accused or removed: McCarrick, Pell, Groer, O’Brien, Is that many enough or would you prefer that I edit the many to just 4. Nothing to see here!

I receive your accusation of calumny as a badge of honor! I will not take your acquisitions of calumny or slander to reconciliation because it is your sin to deal with, not mine. I am reporting facts as I have seen them. Troll on! I know that many of these accusations are probably false. But to say that it only involves one Cardinal is inconceivably, evidence proved, denying!

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/bishops/accused/global_list_of_accused_bishops.htm
 
Last edited:
Sounds like you worked very hard yourself,Bullish to do this cleansing that is already evident in the report you are showing .
This is exactly what has been happening since zero tolerance and awareness put this cleansing in motion. Read the dates.
Enjoy the badge . But stop slandering.It is against forum rules
 
Last edited:
Cardinal Pell is on trial, nothing has been proved. Two of the others are dead. Your term “many” was a read as a reference to the current college of Cardinals, not inclusive of all Cardinals throughout history. So you are left with, at most:2. And it hasn’t been proved to my satisfaction wirt respect to Pell.

But I don’t want to argue. I to think that there is a level of corruption in the hierarchy that is appalling. But I am not going to say " many of the Cardinals are (note present tense, ie not dead, but alive) now being revealed as creatures of the most corrupt and vile behavior imaginable ".

ETA: also, McCarrick is no longer a prince if the church, so really your list comes down to Pell. But I will still give you 2.
 
Last edited:
BTW, I will admit that I will not be surprised, at all, if there are more Cardinals guilty of more than just a cover-up. But we just don’t know that yet. Yes, we need a widespread investigation.
 
bullish1 said:
I thank God that many high ranking Princes of the Church are now being revealed as creatures of the most corrupt and vile behavior imaginable
Click to expand...
Read what I said again. I named 4 who are credible accused of sodomy and dead does not absolve them. You act like I reached into the medieval archives to find them which is silly. If you want to defend Pell, go ahead and make your case. I can name many, yes many, more who have committed corrupt and vile behavior which includes covering this stuff up. Let me ask you some questions. Do you think that we know about ALL the cases of vile Cardinal behavior or do you think there are some still to be discovered? Are you satisfied that we only have one, by your count, sexual abusive Cardinal? How many is too many Bishops in that category? Priests? My guess is that you may be in agreement with me on much of what I think on these things.

The Pope accused the Chile victim accusers of calumny. I believe he may have committed calumny by doing that. You said that what I said “seems like calumny”. I am sorry your feel that way but everything I said I stand by. There is not a grain of effort on my part to say anything that is not the truth based on the evidence. I have no intention to distort any information which is why I will also qualify articles I post with corrections if I believe they are wrong on some facts.
 
Last edited:
No, I am not satisfied we have a full accounting of Cardinals and bishops. Read my past three weeks worth of posts on this subject. I just think too many people are assuming the absolute worse about too many people, including the Holy Father. Your statement “I thank God that many high ranking Princes of the Church are now being revealed as creatures of the most corrupt and vile behavior imaginable” was an example of that IMO. “Are” is present tense, “Princes of the Church” are Cardinals, not bishops (a list of which you used to substantiate your statement).

I will also add, I stated in my first response to you, I understand where you are coming from. We agree more than disagree. I too have said I am thankful for Vigano’s letter and find it credible. I too think the Church needs a great cleansing.

I only took exception to you saying many Cardinals are guilty of the most vile and corrupt behavior possible. We do not know that.
 
Last edited:
bullish1 said:
Typical that you can’t take a single element of this entire article and post something relevant or pertinent to the situation
Click to expand...
Okay, the first element that is wrong is your use of the word “typical.” That is false. As to elements of the article itself, I will start with the title “breaking apart.” That is wishful thinking on the part of Satan, his minions, and his human instruments. Then we have this listed as something we know, “In or about 2009, Pope Benedict XVI placed McCarrick under some sort of sanction.” This, however, has not been substantiated as of yet. The fact that Vigano, who seems to have such a sharp memory in most of the letter, doesn’t even know when this happened.

Then there is the name calling. “Wuerl’s defense is that he is not an evil man who looked the other way about the behavior of a known sexual predator, but merely an incompetent dolt.”

Finally, you should look up the definition of “troll” if you are going to use the word to describe others.
bullish1 said:
You can dismiss all the evidence you want of what is going on.
Click to expand...
I dismiss no evidence, but I do know what that word means. More to the point, I look at all evidence, pro and con, not dismissing important evidence, like the deficiencies in Vigano’s letter, or the lack of this supposed sanction in writing. I know I will never persuade you. I will never persuade any enemy of the Church either.
 
Last edited:
bullish1 said:
Cardinals credibly accused or removed: McCarrick, Pell, Groer, O’Brien, Is that many enough or would you prefer that I edit the many to just 4. Nothing to see here!
Click to expand...
You change the accusation from “done” to "credibly (I guess you are the judge?) accused and removed. I will remind you that many people here are from the United States. We have the concept of justice that requires a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Also many here are Catholics, whose Church teaches how to avoid rash judgement.
 
tafan2 said:
ETA: also, McCarrick is no longer a prince if the church, so really your list comes down to Pell. But I will still give you 2.
Click to expand...
There are currently 203 Cardinals, so that would be 1%. In other words, “many”? If we go back in time to add in Cardinals from the past, then all the Cardinals from the past would have to be added in.

The problem is that even 1%, at this level, is troubling. I would hope that the investigation into the McCarrick case can reveal how he could get where he was, considering all that was known, at least by some.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
I will never persuade you. I will never persuade any enemy of the Church either.
Click to expand...
Are you insinuating that I am an enemy of the Church? I can’t say what I really think about that bit of logic.

You still did not take a single element of the article and post something relevant or pertinent to the situation.

You claim to have done so with the title, but I started with the warning that the title was misleading. Do you really fail to see how badly divided the Church is on this right now?

You deny that McCarrick was under some sort of sanction when there is plenty of evidence that leads a reasonable and prudent person to believe it was true. He was stopped by Wuerl from meeting with seminarians and was asked to vacate his living quarters at the seminary. Although Wuerl claims he does not know why he was told to do that.

You often post off topic or extraneous comments. That is what a troll does. I won’t be responding to any more of your posts.
 
Last edited:
bullish1 said:
Are you insinuating that I am an enemy of the Church? I can’t say what I really think about that bit of logic.
Click to expand...
No. I used the word “either.” Language matters.
bullish1 said:
You deny that McCarrick was under some sort of sanction when there is plenty of evidence that leads a reasonable and prudent person to believe it was true.
Click to expand...
The article said that it was something that we know. We do not know this. There is evidence also, that it is untrue, more evidence, in my opinion. First, there is a lack of a definite date, even from the accuser who seems to have such good memory of other dates. Second, there is lack of any document. The Church does not operate without records.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
The article said that it was something that we know. We do not know this. There is evidence also, that it is untrue, more evidence, in my opinion. First, there is a lack of a definite date, even from the accuser who seems to have such good memory of other dates. Second, there is lack of any document. The Church does not operate without records.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you don’t know the timeline well enough for it to make sense to you.

AB Sambi was apostolic nuncio to the US from 2005-2011 when he died unexpectedly. Sambi could have informed Vigano (sometime in 2007-08) who was working in the Secretariat of State office as the delegate for Pontifical Representations. He was the personnel chief for the Roman curia in addition to Vatican diplomats. It is very likely he saw the documentation. He served in this role until he became Secretary General of the (name removed by moderator)ate on 16 July 2009. After Sambi’s death in 2011, he was appointed nuncio to the US.

Why continue to ignore the testimony of Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, the former first counsellor at the apostolic nunciature in Washington D.C., who confirmed Viganò, told “the truth” in his testimony? Mons Lantheaume (Vigano says) told him that he heard Sambi’s booming voice telling McCarrick of the sanctions all the way down the corridor. Is this also a lie?

The documentation necessary to establish exactly when Sambi attempted to relay the sanctions on McCarrick is at the Apostolic nunciature and the Vatican (if what Vigano claims is true). As you state, the Church keeps records…and should release them to expose Vigano as the Great Accuser.
 
kyrie03 said:
Perhaps you don’t know the timeline well enough for it to make sense to you.
Click to expand...
LOL. Interesting response. Yes, I know the timeline. And the reason I ignore the testimony of “Msgr. Lanteaume is because he hasn’t actually given any of value. All we have is someone from the hallway (not even the room) saying, “Viganò said the truth. That’s all,”and then declining any statement or interview.

“Could of,” “likely?” These are word of speculation. Your last statement made no sense though. If there is no record because there were no sanctions, how can this nothing be released? I have no idea what there is and what their isn’t. The thing is, I at least recognize my ignorance, and have no problem pointing our ignorant conclusions.

I still think this whole idea of these sanctions being in 2009 or 2010 will cast doubt either on their existence, the memory of Vigano, or his perception. Something about this lack of precision on the single most important accusation, in a letter with so many other particulars and dates, is highly suspicious. But what do I know. This will now be in the capable hands of someone I trust to look at, and someone without any axe to grind, except for the scandal that McCarrick caused.
 
Last edited:
I’ve been considering a return to the Church, but I’m having serious trouble with this Pope. I was uneasy the day he was elected. He seemed too good to be true, and I’ve ignored those “premonitions” before, to great trouble.
 
grizzly67 said:
I’ve been considering a return to the Church, but I’m having serious trouble with this Pope. I was uneasy the day he was elected. He seemed too good to be true, and I’ve ignored those “premonitions” before, to great trouble.
Click to expand...
We aren’t Catholic because of the pope. We’re Catholic because of Christ.
 
Day 24
Folks must live their lives but no one has forgotten.
Everyday I think about how we have all been left hanging.
This thread might close someday but a new one will be opened.
 
Just waiting for more concrete news and a coherent response. The ball is fully in the Vatican’s court at this point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top