Disturbing corroboration for ++ Vigano


#1

https://dwightlongenecker.com/four-reasons-why-i-believe-archbishop-vigano/


#2

Few on this forum seem to want to acknowledge how dark and deep and sordid the scandal runs in the church. The Pennsylvania attorney general has evidence that the Pope knew about the problems as well.


#3

I am a victim of sexual abuse. I know exactly how deep this runs, thank you very much. I happen to believe that the Light of Christ will ALWAYS pierce the darkness, no matter how dense. I also believe that “I know because he said so”, “I know because this priest I like said so”, “I know because it’s obvious” is tantamount to gossip. It’s titillating, it feeds the anxiety and the grist mill and it promotes forms of vigilantism.

When Pope Francis admits his fault, when a grand jury has evidence such that guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt in each case of each accused, when due process has been completed, I will know who did what.

I can wait in order to ensure that true justice is served.


#4

THANK YOU for that So true.


#5

It should go without saying,:

  • people are innocent until proven guilty;
  • prayer is the most important response, the most effective action we can take now

#6

Yes there is definite pattern there : after being aware of knowledge of abusive behavior, not taking decisive action consistent with “zero tolerance”

But I’d say those 4 cases aren’t even the worst

Worst is Cardinal Wuerl: still in place despite actively leaving priest in place (George Zirwas) for 9 years who conducted gay pornography ring where altar boys branded with gold crosses If susceptible to abuse. Then paying him bribe when he threatened to leak secrets. Then gave funeral for him and said he was loyal follower of Christ. This is all in PA report. Stephen King couldn’t dream a plot that horrific


#7

I liked Wuerl. Thought he was one of the few straight shooters.

Not anymore.


#9

@commenter you actually believe the reasoning in the article you linked? E.g:

Off course the pope wouldn’t “mean” one person addressing such a broad subject affecting so many people and being such a predictable question coming from the journalists.

Or, for example:

If a civil court judge wants those documents he issues an order for them. Simple as that ! The new “zero tolerance” policy has bishops surrendering all materials to the police the very moment the first complaint is made. Ongoing trials relating to past cases will have all materials the church has being surrendered upon court order.

SO NO. The author of that article you linked doesn’t have the critical thinking necessary to deconstruct the very mainstream news articles he quotes.


#10

You just proved the case - he needs civil judges to tell him to take action when he has knowledge of abuse


#13

Pope Francis did nothing that is actionable by a civil court of law! He reinstated McCarrick to a clerical post that had nothing to do with interaction with children or others over whom he had authority. Francis made a curial decision, I don’t think his action was in any way, sanctioning McCarrick’s abusive behavior, which would be actionable in the court having proper jurisdiction over his actions. Besides, I believe McCarrick’s abuse was with seminarians, not children, though with all the gumflap going on, I could be mistaken.

Politically, should he have done it? Well, I wouldn’t have. But I’m not the Pope. IMO McCarrick should be somewhere in a monastery, to live out his days. He shouldn’t be allowed any contact with others which would put either himself or others in any position where abuse could occur.


#14

Wow so it’s just bishops that enact “zero tolerance” & only for first complaint stage.

That would explain Pope reinstating Fr Inzoli after CDF conviction & defrocking him second time only after civil trial conviction.


#16

Is there a link to the evidence; I have also heard that but have never seen one documents that supports this accusation against the Pope.


#17

Well said and may God bless you for your encouraging post.


#18

Have you been watching those Wendy’s roasts?


#19

That isn’t what the AG said—he said he believed that Vatican officials knew what was going on, not the current Pope specifically. The abuses documented mainly occurred long before the current Pope was elected.


#21

McCarrick was accused by seminarians and younger Priests years ago. The first known accusation was made by a Priest to the Bishop of Metuchen NJ in the 1990s. Newark paid out several settlements in 2005 and 2007.

I believe he was first accused by a person who was a minor at the time of the abuse in NY (early 1970s) in 2017, and in 2018 the NY Archdiocese announced their investigation had found the accusations that he had abused the minor were credible and substantiated. In June the Holy See removed him from public ministry. In July, Pope Francis took away his red hat.


#22

We can argue all day over whether he actually knew every detail. As the head of the church, he is responsible. The buck has to stop somewhere.


#24

The divide that is being pushed by agenda seekers is astounding to me.

Depending on your political bent, you can find anyone and anything to “prove” your side right.

Problem with this is, people who truly love the Church see through this, and see those who wish to spread gossip and scandal as the charletains they are.

The ArchBishop has zero evidence other than a bunch of hearsay and even a quick mouse click can refute many of his claims.

The Devil is alive & well in the Curia and he is playing a dangerous political game. I pray that those on the side of truth and mercy prevail.


#25

Well, according to Cardinal Cupich, Pope Francis is the one with an agenda. The rest are just Latino haters chasing rabbits down holes. I agree there are politics at play.


#26

What you said, 100%


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.