Was Pope Francis involved in the cover-up

[JulianN]

That’s kind of the point of saying we need to wait for more information.

There may have been sanctions, but they were clearly not enforced under Pope Benedict. Nor were they made public. None of us are in a position to know what Pope Francis knew. And until we do, it is highly inappropriate to be calling for his resignation.

 

[GUYMAN]

I certainly agree that thing should be documented / proven , but I would be shocked if the allegations against Pope Francis are totally false. I think in his heart he wants to see some reforms in the Church, but he is 76 yrs old, and so I don’t think he can help but have a certain overall way of looking at things. The Church needs new blood, I’m not saying that youth automatically means virtue - but I think someone who truly has the desire and strength (physical & mental) to make real changes is likely to be in their 40’s or 50’s…

 

[Canvas]

Vigano in a group picture with McCarrick, taken in May 2012, at an event where McCarrick received an award in NYC. Cardinal Dolan was a speaker at this event. Is Vigano taking a night off from enforcing the allegedly super strict sanctions imposed on McCarrick?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Recalling ‘Pagan Babies’ and the Sense of Mission They Inspired - Catholic New York

They were called “pagan babies,” certainly not the most sensitive appellation and one that would never be used today. When Father Andrew Small, O.M.I., asked who remembered them at the inaugural World Mission Dinner May 2 at the Pierre Hotel in Manhattan, a few hands went up, mostly belonging to...

www.cny.org

 

[therese1998]

The fact that he calls for resignation before all the facts are out and have been examined, is most certainly an “opinion,” and most certainly conflicts with the opinions of those who want solid evidence.

Absolutely. And maybe those who are calling for pubic apology for sin should consider public apology for defamation of character PRIOR to solid evidence.

Vigano says Francis knew

ANd here is the crux of the problem. This is a HUGE “he said she said” issue. This is NOT enough evidence for anyone to be convicted and sentenced. You would hope that, as a species, we would move AWAY from the lynch mob mentality, not race toward it.

I was disappointed when he did not respond

Many of us were, but there is clear precedent, set by Jesus Himself, for not responding to the accusations of a mob.

I will pray for him in any case.

Awesome advice

The more serious the problem, the less hasty our decisions and accusations should be.

YES! The voice of reason!

Vigano is either lying or being honest

I would say that’s pretty unlikely. The truth most likely lies in miscommunication/interpretation of verbal conversation on all sides.

gives a lot of credence to the allegations sadly.

How does it give credence when it’s still only circumstantial evidence based on the verbal say so of one man?

As another poster has already stated, scripture says two or three witnesses are needed. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has already refuted the statement.

Bingo!

Im not fully comfortable with this Pope, never have been, but I’m HUGELY uncomfortable with this rush to convict and sentence the Pope without due process.

To those who call for his resignation, are you okay with the very distinct possibility that you are wrong and, in a rush to “get this over with”, you have defamed and falsely accused/imposed punishment on a Vicar of Christ? Please, think about it before you respond, because this is a question you may face more than once and from a much higher source than an admittedly sinful lay Catholic on social media.

 

[ajfrab]

It’s unprecedented and Vigiano has a lot of credibility.

I have a different opinion of the Archbishop, for several reasons.

He was accused of being involved in a cover-up himself (I note that being accused does not mean guilty–unless you are the Pope, of course). That old accusation ( in the Archbishop John Nienstedt investigation) has now resurfaced and he is busy denying them.
He was also associated with the vatileak incidents.
And his own statement against Pope Francis clearly shows that he himself knew about McCarrick since at least 2006, including the years he was nuncio to the U.S. He was in a position to hammer the Cardinal, but did not.
And finally, I take his claim that Pope Benedict placed McCarrick on virtually the same restrictions that he is under now with a great deal of skepticism. If that had indeed been the case, it would have been noticed by a great many. Think if your own bishop suddenly stopped celebrating any Masses in public, or appearing in public.
None of this means that what he said about Francis is not true, but it does mean that I will wait for more evidence to be produced by someone I find more credible.