Pope Francis v Archbishop Vigano

[DoughnutGuy]

Archbishop Vigano claims he told Pope Francis about the McCarrick sanctions. Pope Francis has denied it. Archbishop Vigano is now calling the Pope a liar. The Pope has also sought to undermine Archbishop Vigano’s credibility. So it seems either the Pope is lying or an Archbishop is lying. Either way, it is a most unedifying situation. It is, I suppose, possible that either a) Archbishop Vigano is relying on a false memory or b) Pope Francis has simply forgotten. In that case, there is not necessarily a lie and the dilemma resolves itself. However, both those explanations seem hard to believe. Whom, then, should we, the ordinary Catholics in the pews, believe? What is the right thing to believe in this situation? All other things being equal, I suppose we should take the word of the Pope over the word even of an Archbishop. What are your thoughts on this?

 

[CTBcin]

Either way, it is a most unedifying situation.

You’ve got that right.

As lay faithful, we simply are not in a place to know the whole truth about these matters. The best we can do is live good, holy lives and pray for our Pope, bishops, and priests. Yeah, I know it sounds like a cop out answer, but the holy lives of faithful Catholics can change the world.

 

[PatK63]

What I heard is the pope said he had no recollection of being told. I will go with the Pope. He may lie he is human but God will not fault us for sticking with the Pope!

 

[DoughnutGuy]

Well, that is the most charitable interpretation of the situation, so I suppose we should go with that.

 

[Hoosier-Daddy]

The dilemma does not resolve itself in the scenario you lay out. If the Pope forgot that he was told a top advisory was a homosexual predator then that, to me, is almost as bad as lying. Incompetence is not an acceptable alternative here. Frankly, I’m not sure we will ever know what happened with Vigano, Mccarrick, and the last three popes. I do know that it seems the Church is not acting in the manner in which the Holy Spirit would be guiding. And that goes for all involved. Vigano can and should lay all the cards on the table. Period. Leak and wait then leak some more is not Holy. Then the Pope should act upon the information released and if that information condemns him or his predecessors at all he should lead by example and repent in public and reform the Church. It is now beyond something that should be held in private and in house. It should be visible to all because that is what the Holy Spirit would do.

The Pope needs to shepherd and lead now more than ever. Any pope, Francis, Benedict, a new Pope… Anyone. Benedict’s last letter was concerning because it seemed as if it were a defense of his knowledge of the situation. Francis, for all his words seems more lost than ever and seems to want to discuss politics more than this issue. One thing I like about Francis is his impatience and perhaps even anger at times when he is annoyed. that can be a good thing. But I am so bothered by it when it comes to this issue. From blaming victims in Chile, to stepping in to stop the USCCB from making moves only to then claim it is the responsibility of Bishop’s conferences to handle this to asking a rhetorical question in his latest denial then to only add that he may have forgot one of the most important pieces of information given to him as pontiff.

Politically the Church has handled this about as poorly as you could. People should be fired from just a governing standpoint. And morally this has cost the Church and this Pope the ability to lead on any issues that need to be discussed and guided politically. As head of state this is a complete disaster and the head of state has no business lecturing the UN, the USA, or even Syria on anything.

As a pope, I honestly do believe in Francis. I love the pope. The office and even though I disagree theologically, the man. But Francis needs a Romero moment. And this could be it.

 

[PetraG]

So it seems either the Pope is lying or an Archbishop is lying.

It is possible that both are honestly mistaken about a very important matter; that is, some combination of (a) and (b).
If it weren’t for all the things I was absolutely convinced about that I later found I was wrong about, I’d agree that it is hard to believe. I don’t find it hard to believe.

 

[pnewton]

This generation believes it should have an opinion about everything. There is no need to believe anything about this story, which I may add, came through journalist, primarily one. We have to see conflict and take a side. It is so compelling that even a third option, that the journalism is skewed (image that), was not even considered.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

If it weren’t for all the things I was absolutely convinced about that I later found I was wrong about, I’d agree that it is hard to believe. I don’t find it hard to believe.

You can say that again! Sometimes things are so very clear in my mind that turn out to be completely wrong. The mind can play tricks on us especially when we have convinced ourselves that the thing absolutely happened a certain way and for a certain reason.

Vigano is basically saying “I told them, I know I told them” and the Pope is saying “Nobody told me. I don’t remember it at all”. My husband and I have this dispute weekly! I’m not trying to make light of this. I’m just pointing out that this whole thing is so very human!

In the end, this is a disputed between two men who both think they are right. Arguing about who is right and who is wrong only distracts us from our primary goal: rooting out this predatory rot in the church. This whole Vigano “thing” is a ploy from the devil who always seeks to sow division and discord within the church. We should treat it accordingly.

Solution: 1. Pray for Vigano, Pope Francis, and the Church. 2. Focus on reform.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

What is the right thing to believe in this situation?

We aren’t required to “believe” anything.
We may draw conclusions from the evidence presented, then update that conclusion as information becomes available.

 

[TMC]

The Pope needs to shepherd and lead now more than ever. Any pope, Francis, Benedict, a new Pope… Anyone. Benedict’s last letter was concerning because it seemed as if it were a defense of his knowledge of the situation. Francis, for all his words seems more lost than ever and seems to want to discuss politics more than this issue.

I think we need to come to grips as a Church with the fact that it is more and more obvious that many, many senior leaders of the Church have known a lot more than they admit about the sexual abuse problem - and I mean at least during all of our lifetimes, and probably long before that. It is a difficult thing to accept and understand, but wishing it were not true will not help resolve the problem.

 

[CapitalistCatholic]

I think Vigano may be on to something. That’s all I’m gonna say.

 

[tafan2]

Vigano can and should lay all the cards on the table. Period. Leak and wait then leak some more is not Holy.

He really has done this. His subsequent responses have largely been to answer critics.

 

[PetraG]

I think we need to come to grips as a Church with the fact that it is more and more obvious that many, many senior leaders of the Church have known a lot more than they admit about the sexual abuse problem - and I mean at least during all of our lifetimes, and probably long before that. It is a difficult thing to accept and understand, but wishing it were not true will not help resolve the problem.

I think we need to accept that sometimes they knew and sometimes they didn’t, and we can’t always know who knew what and when.

Archbishop Sample of Portland believes that there needs to be a lay-lead investigation and oversight of matters of this nature, because it has become too difficult for a reasonable person to entirely trust the bishops to self-investigate. It is not enough to be transparent; people have to have trust in the transparency. He thinks the way for the bishops to re-build trust is to be transparent in a way that earns trust back from the laity that at least some of them have clearly squandered.

I think he’s right. There are still going to be sceptics because no investigation is going to be able to definitively prove it turned over every stone and judged every witness rightly, but it is still worth doing what can be done as well as practically possible.

 

[TMC]

I agree that a lay lead investigation would be very helpful, and is probably necessary.

 

[ZMystiCat]

What is the right thing to believe in this situation?

It’s a “he said/she said” (well, “he said/he said”) scenario where, as you pointed out, neither may be a liar. Based on that, I think going any further without a lot more evidence either way is, at best, foolish.

 

[meltzerboy2]

I’m not Catholic but my thoughts are that everyone should wait until the evidence is fully made known and clarified. One thing no one should do is rush to judgment in such an important matter.

 

[pnewton]

Archbishop Sample of Portland believes that there needs to be a lay-lead investigation and oversight of matters of this nature, because it has become too difficult for a reasonable person to entirely trust the bishops to self-investigate.

Of course there must be lay lead investigation. That is what the police do. But if the laity do not talk to the police, the fault at a predator going free is partly shoulder by all who fail to report.

All this “full scale” talk is political theater. The Catholics have historically faced persecution in the United States periodically. On the other hand, crimes are investigated. The Church is not subject to civil authorities in other matters.

 

[PetraG]

Of course there must be lay lead investigation. That is what the police do. But if the laity do not talk to the police, the fault at a predator going free is partly shoulder by all who fail to report.

All this “full scale” talk is political theater. The Catholics have historically faced persecution in the United States periodically. On the other hand, crimes are investigated. The Church is not subject to civil authorities in other matters.

No, he meant within the Church. Secular police seeking criminal convictions and lay litigators seeking damages have totally different boundaries and rightly have different priorities than a Church investigation concerning whether bishops, clergy or religous ought to be allowed to continue in public ministry or face other consequences for failures or other offenses against their position of trust within the Church.

His August 2018 letter is posted on the archdiocesan web site in English and Spanish.
https://archdpdx.org/archdiocese-responds-to-clergy-abuse-report
An excerpt:
Moving forward, I believe several steps should be strongly considered:
1. While only the Pope has the authority to discipline or remove bishops, we must ensure that bishops be held to the same standards as priests and religious in matters of impropriety and abuse. The Dallas Charter and other policies need to be amended where necessary and wherever possible, with the approval of the Holy See, to make this clear.
2. An outside investigation process, with the substantial involvement of lay people who are independent experts in their respective fields, needs to be available for these situations. A body investigating itself does not inspire confidence in the objectivity of the outcome. [boldface mine: PetraG] Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, has invited the Vatican to conduct an Apostolic Visitation to address this crisis in concert with a group of predominantly lay people identified for their expertise by members of the National Review Board and empowered to act.
3. Investigations should also cover those who knew of reprehensible behavior and yet said little, did nothing, or aided and abetted a perpetrator’s activities. All those responsible must be held accountable.
4. All reports of misbehavior or abuse must be properly investigated. They must never be summarily dismissed, ignored, or hidden. They must be dealt with, expeditiously and transparently.

 

[Justin_Mary]

Trust. Pray. Hope.

 

[pnewton]

1. While only the Pope has the authority to discipline or remove bishops, we must ensure that bishops be held to the same standards as priests and religious in matters of impropriety and abuse. The Dallas Charter and other policies need to be amended where necessary and wherever possible, with the approval of the Holy See, to make this clear.

That would seem reasonable. I guess I am even more aggressive, or far less, depending on how you look at it. Knowing that clergy are not experts at forensic investigation, I would say accept they are also not the best at contracting it as well and whenever possible, investigate nothing, but fully cooperate with those whose job it actually is to punish criminals.