This just being reported on several news sites. Please, let him agree to a full investigation of the McCarrick affair.
It’s about time.
I suppose so. It’s certainly past time, IMO, to have named an investigation. As to responding to Vigano’s letter, the timing seems ok to me. It is interesting that his Council of Nine (group incharge of curia reform) is involved. That seems wholly appropriate and indicates, to me, the response will not just be an answer to the charge against the Holy Father. Promising.
The article said the Vatican is preparing clarifications. Didn’t say when they would issue.
Headline is misleading unless the press release is coming out tomorrow.
Ouch! Another headline and story. I’ve stayed away from these. People post editorials. I see National Review Online (NRO) have had some good articles, positive considering the enormity of the problem.
The Church is 2000 years old, if I may think aloud, this may have gone on for who knows? A very long time and I don’t want to say anything too negative that might get a frown… but really? Centuries even?
where is the statement allegedly issued by cardinals or top advisors
‘The cardinals, who are meeting this week at the Vatican, issued a statement saying the Holy See “is working on formulating potential and necessary clarifications.”’
I have not found it in English.
Here it is in English from the Holy See Press Office:
The Council of Cardinals, in the first meeting of its twenty-sixth session, it which it prepares to submit to the Holy Father its proposal on the reform of the Roman Curia drawn up in its first five years of activity, and in view of its continuation, has decided to ask the Pope to reflect on the work, structure and composition of the Council itself, also taking into account the advanced age of some of the members.
The Council expressed its satisfaction for the good outcome of the Ninth World Meeting of Families in Dublin, congratulating Cardinal Kevin J. Farrell and the Dicastery for the Laity, Family and Life, which along with Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, organized the event.
It expressed its full solidarity with Pope Francis with regard to the events of recent weeks, aware that in the current debate the Holy See is about to make the eventual and necessary clarifications.
“working on formulating clarifications”
Option 1: The accusations are false.
Option 2: The False are accusations.
Option 3: Are false accusations the!!
Option 4: False? Accusations are the.
Vatican: “I’ve been trying to pick one for weeks! Ugghh so hard”
OK, I have to be more charitable. Maybe I’ll be pleasantly surprised by their actual response.
My prediction is that if he has the whole council on his side, this is gonna come down like a hammer on a few heads.
But we’ll see.
One has to wonder if there is overlap between the report on the curial reform as to people who need replaced and any of those heads.
I have a feeling Vigano’s career is even more over than he thought it was when he was sent to USA, which he apparently regarded as some backwater. Is there a nuncio to Antarctica?
Is he not retired? I suspect there is some type of penalty that can be applied to him, but if the only response to the whole McCarrick affair is a censure of Vigano, the Holy Father will be making a big mistake.
Oh, I’m sure that won’t be the only response.
But let us wait and see.
I’m guess it’s more complicated than that. I personally don’t see how Vigano could be flat-out lying. But I also think many of his points are possibly exaggerated and full of faulty assumptions—particularly the accusations against Pope Francis.
I’m guessing the response is going to emphasize that Francis took swift action in removing McCarrick’s red hat and imposing sanctions publicly as opposed to privately.
That type of response would be uncharacteristic of the Holy Father. He has not, in the past, been afraid to say he was wrong and apologize. I can’t think of an example where he took a public attitude of “look what I did right”
I do not see the rush, or why such a response should seem late in coming. AB Vigano, in his letter gives a timeline that has him sitting on his accusations for years, and even after Pope Francis removed McCarrick from the Cardinalate, did not release his letter for almost another month. Taking a month, or even two, to respond does not seem unreasonable, though I understand that Americans especially are a rather impatient lot.
Well it’s been almost 4 weeks since he US bishops requested an investigation, it’s been over 2 months since the McCarrick situation became publicly known. It’s time.
You think so. Others agree. The question is, does the Pope think it is time?
Well in Chile he sat on evidence and testimony for years (though he did apologize) but he started an investigation like only a week after he was being attacked by the media, so he can move faster if he wants to. I think he is moving slow in the U.S. because of the people who might be implicated.