Pope Francis Must Resign: Archbishop Vigano

[gracepoole]

gracepoole:

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.

There’s no real way to make that last point credibly, though. We actually have no idea which dioceses had big sexual abuse cover-ups. And we won’t, apparently, until secular authorities demand information from all.

 

[gracepoole]

gracepoole:

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?

I apologize in advance for answering a question with a question but… Is Martin’s assessment accurate or isn’t it?

 

[gracepoole]

What I found dubious is this latest claim that the Pope knew all about the Kim Davis meeting.

Yeah, if it hadn’t before, this is when this whole thing began looking incredibly motivated. I think I literally rolled my eyes when the Davis story was resurrected.

 

[pnewton]

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

That is out of left field. I said I am not going to open up the right and wrong of Kim Davis’ actions. However, if you really observe this, then that supports that AB Vigano makes no sense by claiming the Pope would want to meet that politician.

Is it just criminal behavior covered by Dallas Charter that should be observed?

No.

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]

THe Dallas Charter only addresses abuse of minors. And yes, minors are much more protected. But what about deviant behavior in seminaries or with those in the hierarchy in authority over those under their care?

Is there a way to discipline bishops who either engage in or allow deviant behavior?

 

[kyrie03]

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.

Vigano says where one could find documentation backing up his accusations. He took an oath declaring the truthfulness. He asks journalists to request the 300 pages of the investigation conducted by the 3 bishops that Pope Benedict requested…and disappeared after Pope Francis took office.

The ones who he implicates are not addressing. - NY Times attempted to get statements and hit a wall of silence.

I agree, inflammatory language in both Vigano’s testimony and Fr Martin’s response.

 

[kyrie03]

Fr. Martin’s response attempts to discredit Ab Vigano because of his motivations. Does Vigano state he knows the motivations of the ones he accuses?

Fr Martin’s account of Kim Davis affair is one person’s word against another. Vigano also put out his response ALONG with documentation- the memo he says he gave to Pope Francis prior to meeting and an account of his meeting with Pope Francis after the affair where the Pope didn’t chastise him about it.

Did Fr Martin provide documentation? BTW, seems odd to focus on this episode as it distracts from the allegations that those in the curia covered up for sexually deviant behavior.

 

[kyrie03]

That is out of left field. I said I am not going to open up the right and wrong of Kim Davis’ actions. However, if you really observe this, then that supports that AB Vigano makes no sense by claiming the Pope would want to meet that politician.

Kim Davis is a politician?

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.

Thanks- sorry I neglected to see this.

And do you know what structure is in place to deal with bishops who may have engaged in these immoral acts or excused this behavior in those under their authority?

 

[13pollitos]

Kim Davis is a county clerk.

 

[graciew]

Kyrie,there is no such memo mentioned in the Testimony that Vigano gave Pope Francis.
And the persons writing the account that contradict Vigano about the Davis affair are two who were together.
It is a thick plot in the Testimony,I know…

 

[pnewton]

Fr Martin’s account of Kim Davis affair is one person’s word against another. Vigano also put out his response ALONG with documentation- the memo he says he gave to Pope Francis prior to meeting and an account of his meeting with Pope Francis after the affair where the Pope didn’t chastise him about it.

This is the first I heard of him giving any documentation. Have you seen it your self somewhere?

 

[Erikaspirit16]

There’s a lot of talk about “penance” for the complicit.

Take a look at Cardinal Leger–archbishop of Montreal from 1950-67. He resigned as archbishop and went to help lepers in Africa for the next 12 years. (And his brother was governor general of Canada for five years in the late 70s–an impressive family!)

You want “penance”? Let them help with the dying in India, lepers in Africa, refugees everywhere…let them get their hands dirty. Let them work in abysmal conditions.

What I don’t want is to see them retire to a villa in Florida to an all-expense paid life of leisure. If they refuse? Then they are showing their true colors.

 

[kyrie03]

The NY Times looked into the Kim Davis controversy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/02/world/europe/pope-francis-archbishop-vigano-kim-davis.html#click=https://t.co/0qIHCSQfRU

“One of them is lying: either Cruz or the pope?” he wrote. “What is certain is that the pope knew very well who Davis was, and he and his close collaborators had approved the private audience.”

On Sunday, the pope’s allies seemed to confirm that.

Fr Martin, perhaps, isn’t aware of the full story

 

[Ghosty1981]

On Sunday, the pope’s allies seemed to confirm that.

They are also confirming that the Vatican Press Office blatantly lied about the event at the time.

 

[kyrie03]

I copied from post 48 in other thread -Former Nuncio says restrictions against McCartick were private (if doesn’t cut and paste properly, please go to other thread)

Read the following explanation of the Kim Davis incident.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/lifesite/Kim_Davis_- English - E -_final.pdf

And here is the memo Vigano provided to Pope Francis prior to the Kim Davis meeting:

s3.amazonaws.com

Kim_Davis_Pro-Memoria_for_Pope_Francis.pdf​

 

[pnewton]

They are also confirming that the Vatican Press Office blatantly lied about the event at the time.

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.

I have little regard for those who commit rash judgement against the Holy Father, or the Archbishop, for that matter. He too is deserving of respect.

Christians need an increase in the virtue of patience and a reduction of the sin of gossip.

 

[pnewton]

I copied from post 48 in other thread -Former Nuncio says restrictions against McCartick were private (if doesn’t cut and paste properly, please go to other thread)

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. 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.

 

[Joe_5859]

The points I keep circling back to in all of this are:

1. The McCarrick situation needs to be investigated. It needs to be determined who knew what, when they knew it, and what they did or did not do with that information. No one seems to dispute the need for such an investigation.
2. There was never going to be any comprehensive investigation into McCarrick without talking to Archbishop Vigano. He was the nuncio to the U.S. during this period of silence. And before that, he was second to the Secretary of State in terms of administrative responsibilities. He is precisely one of the people who needed to be asked, “What did you know and when did you know it?”
3. Archbishop Vigano didn’t wait to be asked, but released this 11 page testimony of his own volition prior to any investigation getting off the ground.

Now, we may questions his motives. We may question the veracity of his claims. But he was going to be saying these things sooner or later, unless we presume that he was not going to be questioned—in which case I would wonder at how comprehensive the investigation truly was.

In a sense, Vigano has simply jumpstarted the investigative process.

 

[tafan2]

I agree with your points 2 and 3. Your final sentence of the point 1 ) “No one seems to dispute the need for such an investigation”) is not at all apparent to me. To my knowledge Cardinal Wuerl and Cardinal Cupich have not joined the call for an investigation. On Thursday, it will have been 3 weeks since the US Bishops called for a full investigation, and I have heard nothing out of the Vatican about it, there seems to be silence. There is no indication that The Holy Father sees a need for such an investigation. I can name many “Frances defenders” (I hate that term, as it implies I am not one, but that is all I have), who have not called out for such an investigation.

At this point, I am very skeptical that such an investigation will occur. That is what I thought prior to Vigano’s letter. I had hoped he had forced the issue. That does not seem to be the case. Besides USCCB executive committee calling for an investigation, there have been many individual bishops calling for it. Silence, that is what we get in response. I do not expect that to change.

 

[Joe_5859]

I suppose I meant more that I had not heard anyone vocally say there should not be an investigation.

I hope you are not correct, though I would not be surprised if you were. With McCarrick being up there in age, I feel like the approach could be, “Let’s just drag our heels until he dies and then it’s a non-issue.”

I also keep waiting and praying for some people (like McCarrick or anyone who knew the extent of what he has done) to have a crisis of conscience and just come out with it. To some extent, I feel that’s what Vigano has done. Honestly, if he waited to be asked until saying these things, he’d look like a co-conspirator. Now he appears as a whistle-blower.