Pope: 'I will not say a single word' on Vigano's allegations of cover-up

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
graciew said:
Leave that part about condescension in his dialogue with the journalist to rest ,he wasn t. I can hear him differently in my mind because like it or not, we belong to the same place.
I do not mean to second guess him,but just try and convey the tone.
Click to expand...
With respect i am not interested in subjective tone. I am interested in facts and transparency.
 
I guess most posters here have not been subject to false accusations and have no awareness of not only the distortions that take place nor the damage that the hate can cause the victim who is being demonized.

Let me just turn the tables around and accuse all those who find fault with the Pope’s response of being prejudiced against Latinos, that their sole motivation is to act as Satan’s pawns attempting to destroy Christ’s church that he infiltrated for that purpose. Now people here can rant and rave and spew all sorts of nonsense trying to defend themselves from what may actually be true in some cases, but does not apply to them. But, here it doesn’t matter because we are just random idiots on the internet and there isn’t a hate on them by individuals and groups who do want to destroy them and the church in real life.

The Pope is a world leader. All he has said is what we all do when we are bad-mouthed - look at the source. He is formulating a response to address everyone’s concerns. The fact is that there is always some truth to any allegation. The distortion which can change the meaning of that truth 180 degrees can be very difficult to clarify and especially so when one is addressing a large segment who are acting in bad faith.
 
Last edited:
I was using that as an example of a false allegation, hoping that those of whom it could be said would contemplate what their response might be. Clearly, many of those who think the Pope’s response was weak want the filth cleaned up, likely more quickly than can actually be done. I don’t believe the matter will go on the back burner. I believe the truth will be pursued, but patience will be required.
 
Last edited:
Eh… Trust in God. The Truth will come out eventually. And in the meantime, strengthen your faith - go to Confession, Mass, and love God and others. The wrongs of others will be justified; make sure you are doing what you can to preserve your soul and those of others. Cheers 🙂 - I think it will all work out - actually I know it will.
 
I am finding the the Liturgy of the Hours and the psalms a great comfort through all this.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Vigano’s story was released to ultra-right conservative sources like Lifesitenews and The Church Militant, which should’ve been a red flag in of itself.
Click to expand...
Regardless of where it was released a bishop in the Church made the accusation that the Church hierarchy has protected homosexual prelates who predate upon seminarians. That is news. This isn’t an anonymous source. This is a parish secretary. The letter could be all lies but it is important news.
 
Well, one way or another, I feel that Pope Francis’ current tenure in office is becoming increasingly un-sustainable. We have a current situation where one Pope has been ‘pressured’ out of office; a phenomenon not known for 600 years, and it increasingly looks that ‘we’ could have a unique situation in the history of the Church, where we have 2 Popes alive, who have ‘resigned’ {or been pushed], and perhaps a 3rd newly voted into office. Interesting, and dark times, indeed. What worries me very much is the ‘quality’ of any next choice of Pontiff we may have - he will need to be able to resist the pressures of the ‘wolves’ around him - and indeed those very ‘wolves’ would be among the very College of Cardinals that would be voting.
 
Last edited:
If the pope resigns, expect that we will be getting black smoke at the next conclave for a very long time before white smoke appears.
 
Ultimately in the grand scheme of things, scandals and homosexual activity in the clergy and who is or is not a cardinal or pope matters very little. I feel more and more detached.
 
Last edited:
From the Atlantic article you posted:
When I asked Andrea Tornielli, a veteran Vatican reporter for the Turin daily La Stampa and the website Vatican Insider , about the letter, he saw straight through it. “It’s a political and media maneuver of ecclesiastical power.” It comes, he said, from the same traditionalist faction that about a year ago tried and failed to impeach the pope over his attempting to open the door to allowingremarried divorcées to receive the sacraments. (It’s a complex theological debate, but Francis has prevailed over his critics on the matter.) “Now they’re trying to do it by formally asking for his resignation for a presumed cover-up of Cardinal McCarrick.”
Click to expand...
Toneilli sees this as a political move. Whether or not he is correct, it distracts from the questions that need to be answered. And when we get caught up in treating a speculation as a truth, we deceive ourselves.

We are all waiting for not only Pope Francis’ detailed response (@abcus), we await the response of all the others who are unusually silent -almost a week after the story broke.
 
Anyone else getting deja vous?

The people of the Church ask, “what is the truth?” Pope Francis deflects the ball to journalists. He knows where they stand on matters like homosexuality and homosexual priests, respect for the Eucharist, divorce, etc…

He has ignored petitions from the faithful to clarify inconsistencies in his official teaching.

He has refused to answer the Dubia cardinals. The closest he came to confirming the faithful in the truth, is to state unofficially that the Buenos Aires bishops’ interpretation of Amoris Laetitia is “correct”, “balanced”, “fully expresses” his meaning of the problematic Ch 8.

Re-read his interview on the plane. He doesn’t address the people who want answers……who the journalist represents when she poses the question. He wants journalists to “do their job”.

It’s not his job to clarify?

He trusts the media - not his nuncios, cardinals and bishops who question his decisions or merely ask for clarification.

Ben Shapiro notes:
The media’s disgraceful attempts to cover for Francis because of their love for his politics merely exposes the actual malign motivations of many in the media: they were happy to expose misconduct and evil inside the Catholic Church when the pope was a conservative; they’re happy to facilitate a cover-up when the pope is a liberal.
Click to expand...
That’s vile. And most Catholics understand that if the members of the media—an overwhelmingly secular group of people—are steadfastly defending a papacy accused of sexual abuse cover-ups, it’s not out of goodwill for the Church generally. It’s out of a belief that traditionalist doctrine must be rooted out at any cost, even including the abuse of minors and the violation of basic canon law.
Click to expand...
www.newsweek.com

Why in God's Name Is the Media Protecting the Pope?

The media's attempts to cover for Francis because of their love for his politics is vile.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com
 
Not only is the Holy Father silent, but the NY Times reached out to every cardinal and bishop named by Vigano as knowing about the sanctions imposed by Benedict on McCarrick… Guess what they found?

www.nytimes.com

If Cardinal Was Under Pope’s Sanctions, Why Was He Allowed at Gala Events? (Published 2018)

A review of Cardinal Theodore McCarrick’s activities during the time he was supposedly under restrictions raises questions of how tough the Vatican is on bishops accused of sexual abuse.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
Following the pope’s lead, the Vatican has gone on lockdown.

Cardinal Leonardo Sandri, whom Archbishop Viganò also accused in the letter of covering up sexual misconduct by Cardinal McCarrick, rushed a reporter off the phone on Thursday evening.

“Look, I’m not in my office. Good evening. Good evening,” he said. And he was the most talkative.

The Times reached out to every cardinal and bishop said by Archbishop Viganò to have known about the alleged sanctions on Cardinal McCarrick by Benedict. More than a dozen of them declined or did not answer requests for comment.

Cardinal Wuerl of Washington said in a statement that he was never informed about any sanctions on Cardinal McCarrick. Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark said in an interview, “I was never aware of any restrictions.”

A visit to the Vatican Embassy in Washington yielded no information.
Click to expand...
Read the whole article- it gives further information about the Kim Davis controversy.
 
Last edited:
The action of Vigano was politically-motivated. He wanted to be appointed secretary of state, but Pope Francis appointed Parolin instead. Poor Pope Francis!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top