Pope Francis response to ex nuncio

[Roseeurekacross]

Stay tuned, it’s just come over the news.

Waiting for some print links.

Francis said the 11-page text by Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, which reads in part like a homophobic attack on Francis and his allies, “speaks for itself” and that he wouldn’t comment on it.
Francis said he had read Vigano’s document and trusted journalists to judge for themselves.
“It’s an act of trust,” he said. “I won’t say a word about it.”

Pope 'won't say a word about it' after he's accused of ignoring abuse claims

The National Catholic Register and another conservative site, LifeSiteNews, posted the letter attributed to Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano on Sunday.

chicago.suntimes.com

 

[Ghosty1981]

I am so utterly disappointed with the Pope’s initial response. Hopefully we will hear more in the coming days and weeks, and this won’t be the final word from the Pope. I have to limit what I say on this matter because it will be difficult for me to remain charitable in my words about the Pope.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I would not expect the leader of the Catholic Church to be dragged down into a slanging match. Anyone can claim anything, this does not create an obligation to respond.
Leaders should have more restraint then that. I know the climate at the moment is a bit different in some countries with their leadership

Why not ask the ex nuncio why he covered up abuses before following his pointing finger

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

Lol, a homophobic attack huh. Nice ad hominem.

 

[Cathoholic]

Roseeurekacross . . .

Francis said he had read Vigano’s document and trusted journalists to judge for themselves.
“It’s an act of trust,” he said. “I won’t say a word about it.”

As I have mentioned . . .

I watched the video of the Pope.

He has said (to CBS news) . . . .

.

NO—He won’t address Vigano’s letter . . . .

"Read the statement carefully yourselves and make your own judgment. I am not going to say a word about this"

.

MAYBE—Possibly he WILL address Vigano’s letter . . .

“When a little time goes by, and you have drawn conclusions, perhaps I will speak about it. . . .”

.

YES—He will address Vigano’s letter . . . .

I will respond to your question. But I would prefer that we first speak about the trip, and then other topics. I got distracted with Stefania and now … but I will respond.

.

I think this is Pope Francis’ way of saying he WILL address Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s letter, but he needs some time to recollect himself first.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Why not ask the ex nuncio why he covered up abuses before following his pointing finger

This is a “what about” argument that doesn’t address the credible allegations that have been raised.

I would not expect the leader of the Catholic Church to be dragged down into a slanging match. Anyone can claim anything, this does not create an obligation to respond.

I expect the Pope to be more forthcoming in his response, even if it is merely to say that he doesn’t have all the information yet and will need time to present his case. To tell the press “do your job”, when that is exactly what they’re doing by asking the Pope about the allegations against him, is weak and patronizing. To invite people to draw their conclusions before he addresses the issue is, frankly, absurd. His (name removed by moderator)ut is needed in order for us to draw conclusions, as he is a principle player in the unfolding story. His answer to these allegations is one of the pieces of information we need in order to make informed conclusions, not something that should come in after the fact.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I will respond to your question. But I would prefer that we first speak about the trip, and then other topics. I got distracted with Stefania and now … but I will respond.

this doesn’t mean he will address Viganos letter, it means he will respond to their questions about it.

And he says

“Read the statement carefully yourselves and make your own judgment. I am not going to say a word about this”

so he is stating quite clearly he is not entering into a slanging match with a kangaroo court and trial by media

“When a little time goes by, and you have drawn conclusions, perhaps I will speak about it. . . .”

and here I think he is saying as many fathers do,

we will see! A very typical fatherly statement to his children.

but as i said in another thread, we know priests and laity can rape and abuse children and other crimes, so why can’t arch bishops also commit calumny, falsehoods, and lie.

the ex nuncio has charges to answer first of cover ups he himself committed, before he points fingers at others.

and the vatican treasury seems to be involved, as it was the domain of the ex nuncio at one point, we have a vatican treasurer on trial here on charges. And many are asking if it was to get him out of the way because he was purging and cleaning out the corruption in the vatican treasury.

hmm whats that corrupt group in Italy

 

[Ghosty1981]

and here I think he is saying as many fathers do,

we will see! A very typical fatherly statement to his children.

I don’t see how this is a fatherly statement at all. When asked a direct question that you have an answer for, you give an answer. When asked a question that you have no answer for, you say you don’t know, but that you will explore the matter with the child. It is not fatherly to say “come up with your own conclusions about me first, and then I might respond”. That is not an invitation to greater understanding, it is avoiding the issue.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

This is a “what about” argument that doesn’t address the credible allegations that have been raised.

at this point there is nothing credible about the allegations, they are just someone writing a letter and accusing someone else, his boss, of all sorts of revolting things.

why do people read one letter and decide it holds credibility. Has the ex nuncio actually presented evidence, written evidence, or is this all hearsay.

We can’t have fake news when it comes to a president and not call it fake news when it comes to a Pope. Trump does it all the time, draw your own conclusions from what the fake news press is saying.

The Pope does not have an obligation to answer every person who alleges scandal and corruption. He would never do anything else if he did. Look at CAF, he would be on here 24/7, answering allegations and charges

 

[Cathoholic]

this doesn’t mean he will address Viganos letter, it means he will respond to their questions about it.

Call it the letter.

Call it questions about the letter.

Call it whatever you want.

But I think Pope Francis WILL address this. He just got done talking about the need for transparency for the last week and a half.

More will be coming. More HAS TO be coming.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I don’t see how this is a fatherly statement at all. When asked a direct question that you have an answer for, you give an answer.

We cannot tell the Pope how to manage a press conference. We don’t like the answer, we must be patient and see what unfolds.

It is very fatherly to say do your own research, draw your own conclusions and then talk to me about it.

Did you expect him to run the ex nuncio down and call him a liar, did you expect him to say yes sure I did cover ups, did you expect him to say, provide proof.

basically he is telling the journos to go research and find the proofs or not, or look at the entire story.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

why must he address every little conspiracy against him?

because the media make a big deal of it?

Holy Father Pope Francis responded in a calm, gentle, and quiet way, Just as one would expect the representative of Jesus on earth to do.

 

[Cathoholic]

Roseeurekacross . . .

Did you expect him to run the ex nuncio down and call him a liar, did you expect him to say . . .

I can’t answer for Ghosty1981, but I don’t know what to expect.

But I DO expect a definitive response from the Pope. And I think he WILL give a definitive response sooner or later.

 

[Ghosty1981]

at this point there is nothing credible about the allegations, they are just someone writing a letter and accusing someone else, his boss, of all sorts of revolting things.

Nonsense! These accusations are credible on their face, regardless of whether or not they are true. On top of that, the allegations have been supported by several people in the position to know about them. These allegations are absolutely credible, what remains to be seen is whether or not they are true.

why do people read one letter and decide it holds credibility. Has the ex nuncio actually presented evidence, written evidence, or is this all hearsay.

If I say that my wife and I enjoyed a nice evening together last night, my statement is credible. It is credible because I have known relationship with my wife, and I would be in a position to know what we did last night. The statement may be a lie; we might have argued, or I might have actually spent the night away, but the statement is credible.

The Pope does not have an obligation to answer every person who alleges scandal and corruption. He would never do anything else if he did. Look at CAF, he would be on here 24/7, answering allegations and charges

This isn’t “anybody”, it is the former Nuncio to the U.S. The archbishop has made clear and credible accusations, and they warrant a response, even if it is merely to say that everything is too fresh to respond to immediately.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I wonder what that response will be, that answer. And I am betting if it puts the ex nuncio in a negative light, it won’t happen

 

[Cathoholic]

why must he address every little conspiracy against him?

All this says is what YOU think.

The Pope will have to address this.

Bishop Barron is calling this “the worst” scandal in the history of the Catholic Church in America. (And a “diabolical masterpiece”).

These are serious issues that cannot be blown off!

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Nonsense! These accusations are credible on their face, regardless of whether or not they are true.

if something is not true, its not credible. If something is only half true , its not credible. if something is painted in a very different light to the truth, its not credible.

Jesus said I am the truth.
Pilate asked What is truth.

If I say that my wife and I enjoyed a nice evening together last night, my statement is credible. It is credible because I have known relationship with my wife, and I would be in a position to know what we did last night.

yes and you don’t know the ex nuncio or the Pope. You don’t know what goes on or went on, so that is a straw man.

This isn’t “anybody”, it is the former Nuncio to the U.S. The archbishop has made clear and credible accusations, and they warrant a response, even if it is merely to say that everything is too fresh to respond to immediately.

he isn’t just the former nuncio to the USA, look at his resume, he has done many other things. Thats only one of them

 

[Roseeurekacross]

The Pope will have to address this.

Bishop Barron is calling this “the worst” scandal in the history of the Catholic Church in America.

These are serious issues that cannot be blown off!

and Mary said, bishops will be against bishops … hmm what was that prophecy.

Unity is what St Ireneus tried hard to create in the first century . Constantinople achieved it in the 4th and 5th centuries.

If we have no unity, and we are divided. We fall flat on our faces.
Australia has faced all this, all this sexual abuse scandal. You are all going through what we went through. all the hurt, the anger, the denial, the Say what, .

but to fixate on the Pope and say oh its all his fault because an archbishop claims a cover up, is a straw man.

I actually posted last year, in discussing the Australian scandals and the division that occurred, that this disunity will be our downfall if we don’t plug it up.

I feel kind of justified now in saying that.

because people are calling for the Pope to resign. and Bishops are against bishops, trial by media is happening, we are convicting people regardless of trials. we are engaging in the media hype rather than thinking critically.

an example in engaging in the media hype is the 300 priests, well it wasn’t 300 priests, it was 300 in total and that number included priests and laity. I haven’t seen any threads about what to do with the laity included in that 300

 

[Cathoholic]

You only have a perverted “unity” if you ignore these things.

Why not just listen to and believe what Pope Francis HAS said about these goings on? A lot of it in the last two weeks.

 

[Ghosty1981]

if something is not true, its not credible. If something is only half true , its not credible. if something is painted in a very different light to the truth, its not credible.

True and credible are not the same thing, they aren’t even synonyms. Credible means that something is reasonable to believe, and the accusations are certainly reasonable.

yes and you don’t know the ex nuncio or the Pope. You don’t know what goes on or went on, so that is a straw man.

I don’t have to know what actually went on to know that an accusation is credible. A nuncio to the U.S. is in a position to know what the Vatican has done about Bishops in the U.S. The fact that this nuncio has been backed up by multiple individuals that would also be in the position to know the facts of the case is further support of the credibility of the accusations. The accusations might still be false, but they are credible. There is no straw-man here.

he isn’t just the former nuncio to the USA, look at his resume, he has done many other things. Thats only one of them

Criminals testify against eachother all the time. They can’t be automatically trusted, but their testimony can certainly be credible, especially when it is corroborated by other, more impeccable, witnesses.