Him: The question remains did Pope Francis know McCormick was a serial molester when he brought him back into the fold? What say you about Danneels as well? No, while this doesn't make B16 look good, McCarrick was always independent. While he flouted sanctions, he was disinvited from all seminarian events, and Wuehrl even cancelled his meetings with seminarians, They all knew. And McCarrick never showed the Bishops conference B16 letter saying no communion for pro choice politicians - in fact misrepresented it. Guy was fearless and shameless. But Danneels . . . Cardinal Coccos orgy, the Hondurans, the Msgr Ricca debacle, the $25 million request from the Papal Foundation - let alone the confusion in doctrine - this has to end. Debacle.Me: This is where the pro-Vigano people fail to understand what they are supporting.
If you want to believe Vigano, then you have to believe Pope Saint John Paul II, Benedict and Vigano himself are all guilty of malfeasance. There's no avoiding those conclusions.
You just want to focus on Pope Francis. But Vigano implicates himself and every Pope in the last forty years.
Vigano accuses the saint of the Church who STARTED the investigations into sexual abuse, he accuses the Pope who acted as that saint's watchdog in investigating the sexual abuse, and he accuses himself, the papal nuncio who claims to have instigated McCarrick's sanctions himself. If he is correct, all of them are guilty of gross malfeasance.
Him: No, that's not a fair reading - (1) it's clear McCarrick disregarded some (but not all) of the sanctions. There is a record of Uncle Ted being told not to attend seminarian events. (2) B16 famously told a reporter "my authority stops at that door"; (3) Viganos actions, while falling short, are not really the story - this is a pattern of rehabilitating abusers. It is a deflection to rebut one small part of this story and miss the elephant in the room. The Smoke of Satan has entered the Vatican.Me: according to Vigano, Saint JP II was informed about McCarrick in the year 2000.
Read his charges.
That's what he says.
That saint elevated McCarrick to DC and the cardinalate in 2005.
HOW in the WORLD is JP II not grossly malfeasant for having done that?
Him: He is. Probably shouldn't be a saint based on a to of this. However, the PAYMENTS were made in 2006. Follow the money. That's where Pope Francis must resign. He used a known pederast to advise him on placing Cardinals, and unlike Vigano, who gave public platitudes b/c the payouts were private and under NDA, Francis relied on this pervert. Disgrace. It's Windswepthouse.Me: OK, well, the declaration of sainthood is an exercise of the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium.
So, now you have just denied a dogma of the Church.
THAT is where supporting Vigano leads.
Bishops from around the world realize this.
When both Ave Maria University and National Catholic Reporter are on the same page about an event in the Church, the few Catholics who are on the other side of the debate should start to re-think their positions.
La Stampa journalists call Vigano's entire account into question
They have now produced a timeline showing how ridiculous Vigano's account is.
An additional conservative bishop support Pope Francis
Update:
Vigano is a convicted thief. Amazing.
UPDATE:
Just a reminder from canon law
Can. 1404 The First See is judged by no one.
Can. 1372— The following are to be punished according to the provision of can. 1336 §§ 2-4:
1° those who hinder the freedom of the ministry or the exercise of ecclesiastical power, or the lawful use of sacred things or ecclesiastical goods, or who intimidate one who has exercised ecclesiastical power or ministry;
2° those who hinder the freedom of an election or intimidate an elector or one who is elected.
Can. 1373— A person who publicly incites hatred or animosity against the Apostolic See or the Ordinary because of some act of ecclesiastical office or duty, or who provokes disobedience against them, is to be punished by interdict or other just penalties.
13 comments:
"This is where the pro-Vigano people fail to understand what they are supporting. If you want to believe Vigano, then you have to believe Pope Saint John Paul II, Benedict and Vigano himself are all guilty of malfeasance."
I think most of them understand perfectly. They rightly fault not only Pope Francis' documented and alleged malfeasance, but they have also observed how utterly inadequate Pope Benedict's reported sanctions against McCarrick were, and have not shrunk from justly faulting Pope John Paul II's well-known dereliction of duty regarding actively homosexual priests, bishops, and cardinals. And yes, they've noted that Archbishop Vigano is also blameworthy.
Ah, but John Paul II is a canonised saint, you say. Irrelevant -- canonisation is not a declaration that someone was completely sinless and eminently prudent throughout his life. That wasn't even true under the traditional, rigorous process, let alone the lower standards of the current canonisation process.
Consider that even St. Joseph Calasanctius failed to deal with the subversion of his Piarist order by sodomites, but rather covered up the sins (and the worst of the perverts was nominated by the pope to head the Piarists). The Church had to completely suppress the compromised and corrupted Piarist Order, and 20 years later an entirely new Piarist order was created. (These facts are related in Karen Liebreich's 2004 scholarly study, "Fallen Order" http://www.karenliebreich.com/books/fallen-order/) The Church beatified and canonised St. Joseph anyway.
Evidently you agree with the currently predominant theological opinion that canonisation is an exercise of the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium. That is, as I said, a theological opinion, NOT a dogma. There have, however, always been Catholics who have disagreed (as recently explained at length here: https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-authority-of-canonisations-do-all.html ). But even if canonisations are infallible, that doesn't mean the saint never sinned or never made serious mistakes in his life.
As for Vigano's revelations, they align with what we already knew or suspected about Francis, Benedict, and John Paul II, so it makes sense that so many bishops have expressed support for Vigano, or have corroborated him in part, or take what he's said seriously and are calling for an investigation.
And when you and Ave Maria University's president are on the same page as the National "Catholic" Reporter, that gives faithful Catholics very good reason to take what you and AMU's president say with a hefty helping of salt.
Remember: we already know that Pope Francis ignored the sanctions against Cardinal Mahony, rehabilitated Cardinal Danneels, ignored Msgr. Ricca's rentboys ("Who am I to judge?"), attacked Chile's sex abuse victims, and reinstated the abuser Mauro Inzoli after Benedict laicised him even though Inzoli was on trial for pederasty and was then convicted. It's hardly unimaginable that he'd ignore sanctions against his friend and ally McCarrick as Vigano reports he did.
You vigorously defend the pope against Vigano's allegations, but you're silent about these other instances of documented malfeasance. You get much more worked up about people criticising Pope Francis on this and other matters than you do over the horrific scandal that the priesthood and episcopate is filled with perverts.
I will stick with Aquinas over you.
Thanks for weighing in. :)
"The 1967 New Catholic Encyclopedia discusses the theological foundation for the infallibility of canonization: "The dogma that saints are to be venerated and invoked as set forth in the profession of faith of Trent (cf. Denz. 1867) has as its correlative the power to canonize. ... St. Thomas Aquinas says, 'Honor we show the saints is a certain profession of faith by which we believe in their glory, and it is to be piously believed that even in this the judgment of the Church is not able to err' (Quodl. 9:8:16).
"The pope cannot by solemn definition induce errors concerning faith and morals into the teaching of the universal Church. Should the Church hold up for universal veneration a man's life and habits that in reality led to [his] damnation, it would lead the faithful into error. It is now theologically certain that the solemn canonization of a saint is an infallible and irrevocable decision of the supreme pontiff. God speaks infallibly through his Church as it demonstrates and exemplifies its universal teaching in a particular person or judges that person's acts to be in accord with its teaching."
A bit more of Archbishop Vigano's sworn testimony is substantiated:
https://cnstopstories.com/2018/09/07/letter-confirms-vatican-officials-knew-of-mccarrick-allegations-in-2000/
As for the disputed question regarding the infallibility of canonisations, I don't hold any firm view one way or the other. Aquinas could be right, but either way this is something Catholics are free to disagree about. And as I've noted, even granting the infallibility of canonisations, to find that a saint sinned or did imprudent things in his life is not to reject the infallibility of canonisations, and it's unintelligent gibberish that you have claimed otherwise.
The implications of today's latest confirmation of Vigano's testimony are as you'd previously intuited: Vatican officials knew about McCarrick's perverted crimes in 2000, which means both Pope John Paul II and then-Cardinal Ratzinger probably knew how unfit he was for the priesthood, episcopate, and cardinalate well before Pope Francis was elected. Vigano's testimony implicates all of the last three popes, showing egregious failures in their duties.
Please correct spelling of McCarrick in the first sentence
". . . . which means both Pope John Paul II and then-Cardinal Ratzinger probably knew how unfit he was for the priesthood, episcopate, and cardinalate well before Pope Francis was elected."
And that, in turn, fits perfectly with John Paul II's shameful failures regarding Marcial Maciel which you mentioned previously. Maybe John Paul knew, or maybe he didn't want to know, about McCarrick -- but Vatican officials certainly knew in 2000, prior to the pope's making him D.C.'s archbishop. Benedict could hardly have not known about McCarrick, since it was his job to handle such allegations before he became pope. McCarrick must have been named in the dossier on the Vatican's velvet mafia that Benedict gave to Francis.
But let's grant that Pope Francis is innocent of Vigano's charges. Even then, there are many other examples of even worse corruption and scandal, both moral and doctrinal, attached to this pontificate. If Francis shouldn't abdicate over l'affaire Vigano, then he still should over the others.
"The First See is judged by no one." Quite so -- but the occupant of the First See on rare occasions has to be judged by the Church, or by another occupant of the First See (as in Honorius' heresy or the need to heal the Western Schism).
"If you want to believe Vigano, then you have to believe Pope Saint John Paul II, Benedict and Vigano himself are all guilty of malfeasance."
Erm, yes, that much is manifestly obvious. JPII's appalling bad judgment in his choice of friends/allies/beneficiaries; Benedict's weakness in dealing firmly with such men; and Vigano's decision to toe the party line on this even for five minutes (when we know already he had no problem going to war against corruption in other ways) all deserve answers.
"You just want to focus on Pope Francis."
Personally, I don't *just* want to focus on him, but he bears some of the blame, to be sure.
Excellent reply. I don't understand why Catholics don't comprehend that Pope Francis is only infallible on matters of Faith & Morals. His prudential judgment is not only very fallible but has proven to be corrupt.
We all know how well "Saint" JPII dealt with sodomite pederasts like Marcial Maciel.
Post a Comment