I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Where Fellowship and Camaraderie lives: that place where the CPS membership values fun and good fellowship as the cement of the community
Post Reply
User avatar
Goose55
Bartleby the Scrivener
Bartleby the Scrivener
Posts: 8415
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 6:44 pm
Location: Southern Arizona, U.S.A.

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by Goose55 » Sat Feb 23, 2019 8:08 pm

"At present we're on the wrong side of the door. But all the pages of the New Testament are rustling with the rumor that it will not always be so." ~ C.S. Lewis

User avatar
hugodrax
A Complete Kneebiter
A Complete Kneebiter
Posts: 18133
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Sat Feb 23, 2019 9:57 pm

Goose55 wrote:
Sat Feb 23, 2019 8:08 pm
What make you of this article?....

https://www.yahoo.com/news/roman-farce-171542609.html
I wouldn't hang a dog on the word of a homosexual Frenchman.
I am also of the opinion that the Jesuits should be suppressed.

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 19760
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Mon Feb 25, 2019 9:49 am

+JMJ+

The church took a large step forward after abuse summit [In-Depth, Opinion]
Image
Pope Francis kisses the altar during a Mass with the heads of bishops' conferences from around the world on the last day of the four-day meeting on the protection of minors in the church at the Vatican Feb. 24. (CNS/Maria Grazia Picciarella)

I hope the naysayers will be as public in admitting the success of the Vatican summit last week as they were beforehand in predicting its failure. As far as I can tell only Religion News Service's Mark Silk and I predicted, in advance, that the meeting would constitute a large step forward. I admit, now, that my expectations were actually exceeded.

I was not alone. Boston Cardinal Sean O'Malley, one of the meeting participants and the prelate who, more than any other, has been on the frontlines of the fight against clergy sex abuse, told me Sunday that he thought the meeting had been a success.

"To my knowledge this is the first time this kind of a conference is taking place in the church," O'Malley said in an email. "The participants are all very pleased with the format, the content, the focus and the atmosphere among the bishops. The message of the Holy Father could not be clearer. The follow up is crucial, but this could be for the universal church what the Dallas charter was for the United States, a real game changer."

You knew something was afoot when the organizers announced that parts of the meeting would be livecast. And that a website had been created to post the major talks. You also knew that the organizers understood the crux of the problem was changing the clerical and hierarchic culture when the agenda was announced and an entire day was dedicated to accountability and another to transparency. It was the absence of those two traits that most characterized the decades of cover-ups under St. Pope John Paul II.

[…]

Chicago Cardinal Blase Cupich's speech on day two of the meeting focused on accountability and synodality and one of the key paragraphs came right near the beginning:
A process that merely changes policies, even if it is the fruit of the finest acts of collegiality, is not enough. It is the conversion of men and women throughout the entire Church — parents and priests, catechists and religious, parish leaders and bishops — and the conversion of ecclesial cultures on every continent that we must seek. Only a synodal vision, rooted in discernment, conversion and reform at every level can bring to the Church the comprehensive action in the defense of the most vulnerable in our midst to which God's grace is calling us.
The phrase "conversion of ecclesial cultures" is what is needed. I can't count the many articles and editorials has NCR published over the years that have said, in essence, "it's the clerical culture, stupid." To hear it from a cardinal, standing next to the pope, at a meeting like this was not nothing.

Cupich went on to delineate four principles to guide the transformation of ecclesial culture: radical listening, lay witness, collegiality and accountability. And he did not leave the issue at the level of principles but suggested some practical, institutional, legal and structural approaches that might achieve them. He reiterated his proposal that allegations against a bishop could be brought to the review board of the metropolitan archbishop, which review boards would consist of both lay and clerical members. This is key: There must be lay people as well as clergy, people with an independent reputation at stake, who will blow the whistle if there is any attempt at a cover-up.

[…]

This focus on clerical culture is important not least because there is a new attempt to obfuscate the crisis by making homosexuals the scapegoats of the clergy sex abuse crisis. There are no serious studies that support the idea that homosexuality is a risk factor in determining who might become an abuser. And, more importantly, the sin and crime of sexual abuse will stalk the human race as long as we have breath. It is the covering up of that abuse, the disposition to sympathize with the perpetrator and not the victim and the bastardization of the theological idea of scandal that turned this into a crisis. The pope's closing message emphasized to all with ears to hear that he expects real change, not empty promises.

[…]

Various news outlets have reported that victims' advocacy groups were unsatisfied with the meeting and are proposing certain courses of action. I thought that one of the strengths of the meeting was the repeated insistence by every presenter, and by the inclusion of victims throughout, that the leaders of the church understand there can be no progress in addressing this mess unless victims are heard. It is precisely the visceral testimony of the victims that prompts conversion of heart and makes the demands of justice crystal clear.

But, we should not look to victims' advocacy groups to determine ecclesial policy. It was clear from this meeting that the church's leaders understand the church is itself on trial. And, just as at a trial, the victim must be heard, and in many jurisdictions, a victims' family is afforded the opportunity to address the court before sentence is imposed, the prominent role victims played in this meeting should be seen as a touchstone for any and all reform efforts. The church must accompany the victims and, what is more, the victims must accompany the church. They must be an integral part of the process. But, a victim or a victims' family does not displace the judge in a trial and cannot replace the role of bishops in changing the clerical culture.

[…]

The bishops of the church made this mess and they must be the ones to clean it up. There is a place for lay involvement. There must be clear procedures of accountability and transparency. But, the bishops cannot farm out the reforms — structural, legal and spiritual — that are needed. They must lead them. The past few days such leadership seemed evident and determined. Much remains to be done and it is up the pope to make sure it gets done. I am betting Francis will do it.

ImageImage

"For this reason, on June 1, 1951 … we did speak of the right of people to migrate, which right is founded in the very nature of land."
— Pope Pius XII, Exsul Familia Nazarethana

User avatar
hugodrax
A Complete Kneebiter
A Complete Kneebiter
Posts: 18133
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Mon Feb 25, 2019 10:14 am

wosbald wrote:
Mon Feb 25, 2019 9:49 am
+JMJ+

The church took a large step forward after abuse summit [In-Depth, Opinion]
Image
Pope Francis kisses the altar during a Mass with the heads of bishops' conferences from around the world on the last day of the four-day meeting on the protection of minors in the church at the Vatican Feb. 24. (CNS/Maria Grazia Picciarella)

I hope the naysayers will be as public in admitting the success of the Vatican summit last week as they were beforehand in predicting its failure. As far as I can tell only Religion News Service's Mark Silk and I predicted, in advance, that the meeting would constitute a large step forward. I admit, now, that my expectations were actually exceeded.

I was not alone. Boston Cardinal Sean O'Malley, one of the meeting participants and the prelate who, more than any other, has been on the frontlines of the fight against clergy sex abuse, told me Sunday that he thought the meeting had been a success.

"To my knowledge this is the first time this kind of a conference is taking place in the church," O'Malley said in an email. "The participants are all very pleased with the format, the content, the focus and the atmosphere among the bishops. The message of the Holy Father could not be clearer. The follow up is crucial, but this could be for the universal church what the Dallas charter was for the United States, a real game changer."

You knew something was afoot when the organizers announced that parts of the meeting would be livecast. And that a website had been created to post the major talks. You also knew that the organizers understood the crux of the problem was changing the clerical and hierarchic culture when the agenda was announced and an entire day was dedicated to accountability and another to transparency. It was the absence of those two traits that most characterized the decades of cover-ups under St. Pope John Paul II.

[…]

Chicago Cardinal Blase Cupich's speech on day two of the meeting focused on accountability and synodality and one of the key paragraphs came right near the beginning:
A process that merely changes policies, even if it is the fruit of the finest acts of collegiality, is not enough. It is the conversion of men and women throughout the entire Church — parents and priests, catechists and religious, parish leaders and bishops — and the conversion of ecclesial cultures on every continent that we must seek. Only a synodal vision, rooted in discernment, conversion and reform at every level can bring to the Church the comprehensive action in the defense of the most vulnerable in our midst to which God's grace is calling us.
The phrase "conversion of ecclesial cultures" is what is needed. I can't count the many articles and editorials has NCR published over the years that have said, in essence, "it's the clerical culture, stupid." To hear it from a cardinal, standing next to the pope, at a meeting like this was not nothing.

Cupich went on to delineate four principles to guide the transformation of ecclesial culture: radical listening, lay witness, collegiality and accountability. And he did not leave the issue at the level of principles but suggested some practical, institutional, legal and structural approaches that might achieve them. He reiterated his proposal that allegations against a bishop could be brought to the review board of the metropolitan archbishop, which review boards would consist of both lay and clerical members. This is key: There must be lay people as well as clergy, people with an independent reputation at stake, who will blow the whistle if there is any attempt at a cover-up.

[…]

This focus on clerical culture is important not least because there is a new attempt to obfuscate the crisis by making homosexuals the scapegoats of the clergy sex abuse crisis. There are no serious studies that support the idea that homosexuality is a risk factor in determining who might become an abuser. And, more importantly, the sin and crime of sexual abuse will stalk the human race as long as we have breath. It is the covering up of that abuse, the disposition to sympathize with the perpetrator and not the victim and the bastardization of the theological idea of scandal that turned this into a crisis. The pope's closing message emphasized to all with ears to hear that he expects real change, not empty promises.

[…]

Various news outlets have reported that victims' advocacy groups were unsatisfied with the meeting and are proposing certain courses of action. I thought that one of the strengths of the meeting was the repeated insistence by every presenter, and by the inclusion of victims throughout, that the leaders of the church understand there can be no progress in addressing this mess unless victims are heard. It is precisely the visceral testimony of the victims that prompts conversion of heart and makes the demands of justice crystal clear.

But, we should not look to victims' advocacy groups to determine ecclesial policy. It was clear from this meeting that the church's leaders understand the church is itself on trial. And, just as at a trial, the victim must be heard, and in many jurisdictions, a victims' family is afforded the opportunity to address the court before sentence is imposed, the prominent role victims played in this meeting should be seen as a touchstone for any and all reform efforts. The church must accompany the victims and, what is more, the victims must accompany the church. They must be an integral part of the process. But, a victim or a victims' family does not displace the judge in a trial and cannot replace the role of bishops in changing the clerical culture.

[…]

The bishops of the church made this mess and they must be the ones to clean it up. There is a place for lay involvement. There must be clear procedures of accountability and transparency. But, the bishops cannot farm out the reforms — structural, legal and spiritual — that are needed. They must lead them. The past few days such leadership seemed evident and determined. Much remains to be done and it is up the pope to make sure it gets done. I am betting Francis will do it.
Nothing gay about it, say the gays. We think of the Church as a woman now and are consequently uninterested.
I am also of the opinion that the Jesuits should be suppressed.

User avatar
hugodrax
A Complete Kneebiter
A Complete Kneebiter
Posts: 18133
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Mon Feb 25, 2019 2:09 pm

And Father Rosica is a plagiarist. Resigned from his college today. Bet he doesn’t go from the Vatican, though.
I am also of the opinion that the Jesuits should be suppressed.

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 19760
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Wed Feb 27, 2019 9:01 am

+JMJ+

Reaction of conservative Catholics to abuse summit reveals a lot [In-Depth, Opinion]
Image
Pope Francis speaks at the conclusion of a Mass on the final day of the meeting on the protection of minors in the church at the Vatican Feb. 24. (CNS/Vatican Media)

Checking out how conservative U.S. Catholics reacted to the Vatican sex abuse summit would be funny if it were not so pitiful. After so many years when they criticized NCR for covering the story (amongst other signs of indifference to the Gospel), now they have decided to get busy. They sense a vulnerability in Pope Francis on this issue, saddled as he is with a curia that has been perfecting the art of sabotaging reform for centuries. They intend to ride this train if they can. But, their commentary betrays their biases more than anything else.

There is Tim Busch, founder of the Napa Institute, board member of EWTN, funder of the business school at Catholic University that bears his name, taking to the pages of …

You could count on the folks at Church Militant to be …

[…]

LifeSiteNews made a splash at the press conferences during the summit. You can see …

Catholic University theology professor Chad Pecknold wrote …

For this crowd, the case of Theodore McCarrick is the perfect storm, combining predatory behavior towards minors and young men, the ecclesial equivalent of what the Jussie Smollett story is for Fox News, a dreadful, regrettable incident that they will use to beat their drums for years. But, stay tuned. McCarrick faced a tribunal at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, not a jury of his peers. Yet a jury of Cardinal George Pell's peers did find him guilty of abusing male minors. We do not lightly ignore a jury verdict, do we? I have been told by people who do not like Pell that they have serious questions about the trial and the cardinal has announced he intends to appeal. I hope the truth will be vindicated whatever that is. But, how is his case different from McCarrick's at this moment, and with the evidence we have? Look for contortions worthy of Cirque du Soleil trying to square that circle in the days ahead.

The biased analysis was not just among the lunatic fringe. At First Things, a look at the summit was published under the pseudonym "Xavier Rynne II" but the author is not Fr. Francis X. Murphy, the writer whose dispatches from the Second Vatican Council in The New Yorker were published under that name. I do not know for sure if the author is George Weigel but I suspect so because the article touched so many of his hobby horses. And who else would include so many references to the writings of St. Pope John Paul II without acknowledging the degree to which his papacy is responsible for the years of covering up sex abuse, if not Weigel?

This new, faux Rynne wrote, "The meeting's sharp focus on 'protection of minors,' essential as that goal is, mitigated a thorough wrestling with the more comprehensive scandal of clerical sexual misbehavior, of which the abuse of the young is one (albeit the most gruesome) expression." The reason for the focus on the abuse of minors is because it is a sin and a crime. Some other forms of sex abuse might also be criminal, such as sexual harassment of a subordinate, but such abuses are handled very differently in different countries' legal regimes. And, of course, there is human frailty, which can be sinful and more easily forgiven, unless one is a Jansenist who has read too much "Theology of the Body."

The article also referenced "the relationship of doctrinal dissent to the abuse crisis" a consideration which could be sane and important or could be sinister and dangerous. Given the rest of the article, I incline towards the latter. One of the most striking aspects of the clergy sex abuse mess is the degree to which the scourge and the cover-up have been indifferent to ideological complexion, involving both liberal "dissenters" and conservative fundamentalists. Similarly, I am made nervous by calls for increased involvement by the laity when it comes so strongly from the right-wing American bleachers. Lastly, does anyone else think it remarkable that First Things would publish anything on the subject of clergy sex abuse without first apologizing for the stance of their founding editor?

These commentaries got me thinking: What would the summit have looked like if it had been organized by U.S. conservative churchmen and laity? Professor Pecknold would offer a presentation on how ad orientem worship might have stemmed clergy sex abuse. Weigel could explain how St. Pope John Paul's teaching, and his actions, were consistent on this issue and how he daringly pointed the way forward. He might be joined by Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz. J.D. Flynn could explain the origins of homosexuality. Cardinal Raymond Burke might explain how the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People should have always applied to bishops, even though he was the one who told the drafting committee in 2002 that it could not. Tim Busch could explain how restructuring the church so that it has a corporate board of rich, conservative, "faithful" Catholics would clean up the mess. I wonder if such a proceeding would convince anyone except themselves that the Catholic Church was getting serious about preventing abuse?

ImageImage

"For this reason, on June 1, 1951 … we did speak of the right of people to migrate, which right is founded in the very nature of land."
— Pope Pius XII, Exsul Familia Nazarethana

User avatar
hugodrax
A Complete Kneebiter
A Complete Kneebiter
Posts: 18133
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Wed Feb 27, 2019 9:31 am

wosbald wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 9:01 am
+JMJ+

Reaction of conservative Catholics to abuse summit reveals a lot [In-Depth, Opinion]
Image
Pope Francis speaks at the conclusion of a Mass on the final day of the meeting on the protection of minors in the church at the Vatican Feb. 24. (CNS/Vatican Media)

Checking out how conservative U.S. Catholics reacted to the Vatican sex abuse summit would be funny if it were not so pitiful. After so many years when they criticized NCR for covering the story (amongst other signs of indifference to the Gospel), now they have decided to get busy. They sense a vulnerability in Pope Francis on this issue, saddled as he is with a curia that has been perfecting the art of sabotaging reform for centuries. They intend to ride this train if they can. But, their commentary betrays their biases more than anything else.

There is Tim Busch, founder of the Napa Institute, board member of EWTN, funder of the business school at Catholic University that bears his name, taking to the pages of …

You could count on the folks at Church Militant to be …

[…]

LifeSiteNews made a splash at the press conferences during the summit. You can see …

Catholic University theology professor Chad Pecknold wrote …

For this crowd, the case of Theodore McCarrick is the perfect storm, combining predatory behavior towards minors and young men, the ecclesial equivalent of what the Jussie Smollett story is for Fox News, a dreadful, regrettable incident that they will use to beat their drums for years. But, stay tuned. McCarrick faced a tribunal at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, not a jury of his peers. Yet a jury of Cardinal George Pell's peers did find him guilty of abusing male minors. We do not lightly ignore a jury verdict, do we? I have been told by people who do not like Pell that they have serious questions about the trial and the cardinal has announced he intends to appeal. I hope the truth will be vindicated whatever that is. But, how is his case different from McCarrick's at this moment, and with the evidence we have? Look for contortions worthy of Cirque du Soleil trying to square that circle in the days ahead.

The biased analysis was not just among the lunatic fringe. At First Things, a look at the summit was published under the pseudonym "Xavier Rynne II" but the author is not Fr. Francis X. Murphy, the writer whose dispatches from the Second Vatican Council in The New Yorker were published under that name. I do not know for sure if the author is George Weigel but I suspect so because the article touched so many of his hobby horses. And who else would include so many references to the writings of St. Pope John Paul II without acknowledging the degree to which his papacy is responsible for the years of covering up sex abuse, if not Weigel?

This new, faux Rynne wrote, "The meeting's sharp focus on 'protection of minors,' essential as that goal is, mitigated a thorough wrestling with the more comprehensive scandal of clerical sexual misbehavior, of which the abuse of the young is one (albeit the most gruesome) expression." The reason for the focus on the abuse of minors is because it is a sin and a crime. Some other forms of sex abuse might also be criminal, such as sexual harassment of a subordinate, but such abuses are handled very differently in different countries' legal regimes. And, of course, there is human frailty, which can be sinful and more easily forgiven, unless one is a Jansenist who has read too much "Theology of the Body."

The article also referenced "the relationship of doctrinal dissent to the abuse crisis" a consideration which could be sane and important or could be sinister and dangerous. Given the rest of the article, I incline towards the latter. One of the most striking aspects of the clergy sex abuse mess is the degree to which the scourge and the cover-up have been indifferent to ideological complexion, involving both liberal "dissenters" and conservative fundamentalists. Similarly, I am made nervous by calls for increased involvement by the laity when it comes so strongly from the right-wing American bleachers. Lastly, does anyone else think it remarkable that First Things would publish anything on the subject of clergy sex abuse without first apologizing for the stance of their founding editor?

These commentaries got me thinking: What would the summit have looked like if it had been organized by U.S. conservative churchmen and laity? Professor Pecknold would offer a presentation on how ad orientem worship might have stemmed clergy sex abuse. Weigel could explain how St. Pope John Paul's teaching, and his actions, were consistent on this issue and how he daringly pointed the way forward. He might be joined by Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz. J.D. Flynn could explain the origins of homosexuality. Cardinal Raymond Burke might explain how the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People should have always applied to bishops, even though he was the one who told the drafting committee in 2002 that it could not. Tim Busch could explain how restructuring the church so that it has a corporate board of rich, conservative, "faithful" Catholics would clean up the mess. I wonder if such a proceeding would convince anyone except themselves that the Catholic Church was getting serious about preventing abuse?
It's almost like all these guys make money by fighting each other online.
I am also of the opinion that the Jesuits should be suppressed.

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 19760
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:47 am

+JMJ+

"Viganò/Ouellet" Intra-Thread Trackbacks: pg 80 / pg 80 / pg 80 / pg 81 / pg 81 / pg 81 / pg 82 / pg 84


Viganò may have made it harder to get to the truth on McCarrick [News Analysis]
Image
In this Nov. 16, 2015 file photo, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, Apostolic Nuncio to the U.S., listens to remarks at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' annual fall meeting in Baltimore. (Credit: AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

ROME — Presumably, when Italian Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò released his now-infamous statement last August claiming that Pope Francis was in on the cover-up of misconduct by ex-cardinal, and now ex-priest Theodore McCarrick, it was because he wanted to shock the system into getting to the truth.

Under the law of unintended consequences, however, it’s becoming steadily clearer that Viganò’s bombshell actually may have made it harder, not easier, to establish exactly what the Vatican knew, and when, in the McCarrick saga.

(The caveat “presumably” is obligatory, since there are countless theories about what Viganò’s real motives were in leveling his j’accuse, and finding the truth doesn’t figure especially high in some of them.)

In a nutshell, there are bishops out there — and I know this, because I’ve spoken to several — who support a thorough investigation of the McCarrick case, especially on the Vatican end, but who now hesitate to say so publicly for fear of being associated with Viganò and what’s seen as the ideological crusade against Francis he represents.

[…]

Around Roman water coolers, some believe the silence on McCarrick is due to the fact that the outcome could stain the legacy of St. John Paul II and some of his key aides, including Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz, the pontiff’s priest secretary, and Cardinal Angelo Sodano, John Paul’s Secretary of State. Both men were in power as McCarrick made his way up the ladder, and both are still alive.

Others believe that the reticence on McCarrick is due to concerns that there might be some merit in Viganò’s charges — if not that Francis was directly aware of abuse allegations and ignored them, at least that he chose not to pursue the rumors vigorously.

In any event, it’s been more than five months since the Vatican promised a review of its files, and nothing has been reported. One obvious question is why American bishops, either publicly or privately or both, aren’t being more vigorous in demanding that the Vatican deliver, since they’re the ones most exposed to pastoral blowback over the failure to do so.

One answer is this: Bishops everywhere, very much including the U.S., hesitate to do anything the boss and his team might perceive as disloyal. By now, being seen as siding with Viganò is regarded by Francis allies as virtually a sin against the Holy Spirit, and unless a bishop has been living under a rock, he’s gotten the memo.

Hence the towering irony of the situation.

Carlo Maria Viganò, who’s aspired for more than a decade to be the great Vatican whistleblower — first during his tenure at the government of the Vatican City state about alleged financial irregularities, and later about Francis and McCarrick — actually may have done more than virtually anyone else to ensure that whistles bishops might otherwise be blowing, especially in the U.S., remain silent.

ImageImage

"For this reason, on June 1, 1951 … we did speak of the right of people to migrate, which right is founded in the very nature of land."
— Pope Pius XII, Exsul Familia Nazarethana

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 13573
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by tuttle » Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:38 am

wosbald wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:47 am
+JMJ+

"Viganò/Ouellet" Intra-Thread Trackbacks: pg 80 / pg 80 / pg 80 / pg 81 / pg 81 / pg 81 / pg 82 / pg 84


Viganò may have made it harder to get to the truth on McCarrick [News Analysis]
Image
In this Nov. 16, 2015 file photo, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, Apostolic Nuncio to the U.S., listens to remarks at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' annual fall meeting in Baltimore. (Credit: AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

ROME — Presumably, when Italian Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò released his now-infamous statement last August claiming that Pope Francis was in on the cover-up of misconduct by ex-cardinal, and now ex-priest Theodore McCarrick, it was because he wanted to shock the system into getting to the truth.

Under the law of unintended consequences, however, it’s becoming steadily clearer that Viganò’s bombshell actually may have made it harder, not easier, to establish exactly what the Vatican knew, and when, in the McCarrick saga.

(The caveat “presumably” is obligatory, since there are countless theories about what Viganò’s real motives were in leveling his j’accuse, and finding the truth doesn’t figure especially high in some of them.)

In a nutshell, there are bishops out there — and I know this, because I’ve spoken to several — who support a thorough investigation of the McCarrick case, especially on the Vatican end, but who now hesitate to say so publicly for fear of being associated with Viganò and what’s seen as the ideological crusade against Francis he represents.

[…]

Around Roman water coolers, some believe the silence on McCarrick is due to the fact that the outcome could stain the legacy of St. John Paul II and some of his key aides, including Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz, the pontiff’s priest secretary, and Cardinal Angelo Sodano, John Paul’s Secretary of State. Both men were in power as McCarrick made his way up the ladder, and both are still alive.

Others believe that the reticence on McCarrick is due to concerns that there might be some merit in Viganò’s charges — if not that Francis was directly aware of abuse allegations and ignored them, at least that he chose not to pursue the rumors vigorously.

In any event, it’s been more than five months since the Vatican promised a review of its files, and nothing has been reported. One obvious question is why American bishops, either publicly or privately or both, aren’t being more vigorous in demanding that the Vatican deliver, since they’re the ones most exposed to pastoral blowback over the failure to do so.

One answer is this: Bishops everywhere, very much including the U.S., hesitate to do anything the boss and his team might perceive as disloyal. By now, being seen as siding with Viganò is regarded by Francis allies as virtually a sin against the Holy Spirit, and unless a bishop has been living under a rock, he’s gotten the memo.

Hence the towering irony of the situation.

Carlo Maria Viganò, who’s aspired for more than a decade to be the great Vatican whistleblower — first during his tenure at the government of the Vatican City state about alleged financial irregularities, and later about Francis and McCarrick — actually may have done more than virtually anyone else to ensure that whistles bishops might otherwise be blowing, especially in the U.S., remain silent.
I don't buy it.

Vigano shines light on truth > Pope puts him on s*** list > others who might shine light on truth scared of being put on Pope's s*** list so remain quiet > It's Vigano's fault

:confused:

I mean, I see how they're trying to spin it, but the onus is still on Francis. It's not ironic that no one "now" wants to speak up, it seems like it's par for the course. If Vigano never said a word about anything would we really be seeing these potential whistleblowing bishops blowing any whistles? The The Pope and his boys sullying of Vigano's actions "as virtually a sin against the Holy Spirit" to deter whistleblowers means the whistleblower is the ironic roadblock to more whistleblowing? Nice try.
"The Evangelium has not abrogated legends; it has hallowed them" -JRR Tolkien

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
hugodrax
A Complete Kneebiter
A Complete Kneebiter
Posts: 18133
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:50 am

tuttle wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:38 am
wosbald wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:47 am
+JMJ+

"Viganò/Ouellet" Intra-Thread Trackbacks: pg 80 / pg 80 / pg 80 / pg 81 / pg 81 / pg 81 / pg 82 / pg 84


Viganò may have made it harder to get to the truth on McCarrick [News Analysis]
Image
In this Nov. 16, 2015 file photo, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, Apostolic Nuncio to the U.S., listens to remarks at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' annual fall meeting in Baltimore. (Credit: AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

ROME — Presumably, when Italian Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò released his now-infamous statement last August claiming that Pope Francis was in on the cover-up of misconduct by ex-cardinal, and now ex-priest Theodore McCarrick, it was because he wanted to shock the system into getting to the truth.

Under the law of unintended consequences, however, it’s becoming steadily clearer that Viganò’s bombshell actually may have made it harder, not easier, to establish exactly what the Vatican knew, and when, in the McCarrick saga.

(The caveat “presumably” is obligatory, since there are countless theories about what Viganò’s real motives were in leveling his j’accuse, and finding the truth doesn’t figure especially high in some of them.)

In a nutshell, there are bishops out there — and I know this, because I’ve spoken to several — who support a thorough investigation of the McCarrick case, especially on the Vatican end, but who now hesitate to say so publicly for fear of being associated with Viganò and what’s seen as the ideological crusade against Francis he represents.

[…]

Around Roman water coolers, some believe the silence on McCarrick is due to the fact that the outcome could stain the legacy of St. John Paul II and some of his key aides, including Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz, the pontiff’s priest secretary, and Cardinal Angelo Sodano, John Paul’s Secretary of State. Both men were in power as McCarrick made his way up the ladder, and both are still alive.

Others believe that the reticence on McCarrick is due to concerns that there might be some merit in Viganò’s charges — if not that Francis was directly aware of abuse allegations and ignored them, at least that he chose not to pursue the rumors vigorously.

In any event, it’s been more than five months since the Vatican promised a review of its files, and nothing has been reported. One obvious question is why American bishops, either publicly or privately or both, aren’t being more vigorous in demanding that the Vatican deliver, since they’re the ones most exposed to pastoral blowback over the failure to do so.

One answer is this: Bishops everywhere, very much including the U.S., hesitate to do anything the boss and his team might perceive as disloyal. By now, being seen as siding with Viganò is regarded by Francis allies as virtually a sin against the Holy Spirit, and unless a bishop has been living under a rock, he’s gotten the memo.

Hence the towering irony of the situation.

Carlo Maria Viganò, who’s aspired for more than a decade to be the great Vatican whistleblower — first during his tenure at the government of the Vatican City state about alleged financial irregularities, and later about Francis and McCarrick — actually may have done more than virtually anyone else to ensure that whistles bishops might otherwise be blowing, especially in the U.S., remain silent.
I don't buy it.

Vigano shines light on truth > Pope puts him on s*** list > others who might shine light on truth scared of being put on Pope's s*** list so remain quiet > It's Vigano's fault

:confused:

I mean, I see how they're trying to spin it, but the onus is still on Francis. It's not ironic that no one "now" wants to speak up, it seems like it's par for the course. If Vigano never said a word about anything would we really be seeing these potential whistleblowing bishops blowing any whistles? The The Pope and his boys sullying of Vigano's actions "as virtually a sin against the Holy Spirit" to deter whistleblowers means the whistleblower is the ironic roadblock to more whistleblowing? Nice try.
You know, that was my general reaction, too. More style and couth, of course, and I thought in complete sentences, but I get it.

Then I read it again and my thoughts changed slightly. Of course the onus is on Pope Francis and his gang of jesuits (you can give him the title without becoming Catholic, much as I can refer to the Queen of England without becoming a British subject or one o’ them tuttle boys).

But that isn’t really the point of the article, is it? The point is the best way to bring these things to light...things the upper echelons never really want to deal with. Now, I find Viganò fairly credible. I said “fairly” because the man has a few axes to grind and a mile wide look at me streak. That look at me streak didn’t do him any favors, did it, even if he’s right. You don’t hold a press conference calling out an absolute monarch before you’ve gathered your junta and expect good things to happen, regardless of whether or not you’re right. And he got sat on, as obviously he would.

What would have happened if he gathered sympathetic bishops and Cardinals first? There are plenty of them, speaking out against the abuses every day. They’re getting punished for it, everyday. On reflection, I took the article to be a subtle way of saying “plan first.”

As much as I don’t see eye to eye with this Pope, I didn’t take this as a pro-papal article, so much as a restatement of the obvious: you want to kill the king, your plan had better make sure he is dead.
I am also of the opinion that the Jesuits should be suppressed.

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 13573
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by tuttle » Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:56 pm

hugodrax wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:50 am
tuttle wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:38 am
wosbald wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:47 am
+JMJ+

"Viganò/Ouellet" Intra-Thread Trackbacks: pg 80 / pg 80 / pg 80 / pg 81 / pg 81 / pg 81 / pg 82 / pg 84


Viganò may have made it harder to get to the truth on McCarrick [News Analysis]
Image
In this Nov. 16, 2015 file photo, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, Apostolic Nuncio to the U.S., listens to remarks at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' annual fall meeting in Baltimore. (Credit: AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

ROME — Presumably, when Italian Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò released his now-infamous statement last August claiming that Pope Francis was in on the cover-up of misconduct by ex-cardinal, and now ex-priest Theodore McCarrick, it was because he wanted to shock the system into getting to the truth.

Under the law of unintended consequences, however, it’s becoming steadily clearer that Viganò’s bombshell actually may have made it harder, not easier, to establish exactly what the Vatican knew, and when, in the McCarrick saga.

(The caveat “presumably” is obligatory, since there are countless theories about what Viganò’s real motives were in leveling his j’accuse, and finding the truth doesn’t figure especially high in some of them.)

In a nutshell, there are bishops out there — and I know this, because I’ve spoken to several — who support a thorough investigation of the McCarrick case, especially on the Vatican end, but who now hesitate to say so publicly for fear of being associated with Viganò and what’s seen as the ideological crusade against Francis he represents.

[…]

Around Roman water coolers, some believe the silence on McCarrick is due to the fact that the outcome could stain the legacy of St. John Paul II and some of his key aides, including Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz, the pontiff’s priest secretary, and Cardinal Angelo Sodano, John Paul’s Secretary of State. Both men were in power as McCarrick made his way up the ladder, and both are still alive.

Others believe that the reticence on McCarrick is due to concerns that there might be some merit in Viganò’s charges — if not that Francis was directly aware of abuse allegations and ignored them, at least that he chose not to pursue the rumors vigorously.

In any event, it’s been more than five months since the Vatican promised a review of its files, and nothing has been reported. One obvious question is why American bishops, either publicly or privately or both, aren’t being more vigorous in demanding that the Vatican deliver, since they’re the ones most exposed to pastoral blowback over the failure to do so.

One answer is this: Bishops everywhere, very much including the U.S., hesitate to do anything the boss and his team might perceive as disloyal. By now, being seen as siding with Viganò is regarded by Francis allies as virtually a sin against the Holy Spirit, and unless a bishop has been living under a rock, he’s gotten the memo.

Hence the towering irony of the situation.

Carlo Maria Viganò, who’s aspired for more than a decade to be the great Vatican whistleblower — first during his tenure at the government of the Vatican City state about alleged financial irregularities, and later about Francis and McCarrick — actually may have done more than virtually anyone else to ensure that whistles bishops might otherwise be blowing, especially in the U.S., remain silent.
I don't buy it.

Vigano shines light on truth > Pope puts him on s*** list > others who might shine light on truth scared of being put on Pope's s*** list so remain quiet > It's Vigano's fault

:confused:

I mean, I see how they're trying to spin it, but the onus is still on Francis. It's not ironic that no one "now" wants to speak up, it seems like it's par for the course. If Vigano never said a word about anything would we really be seeing these potential whistleblowing bishops blowing any whistles? The The Pope and his boys sullying of Vigano's actions "as virtually a sin against the Holy Spirit" to deter whistleblowers means the whistleblower is the ironic roadblock to more whistleblowing? Nice try.
You know, that was my general reaction, too. More style and couth, of course, and I thought in complete sentences, but I get it.

Then I read it again and my thoughts changed slightly. Of course the onus is on Pope Francis and his gang of jesuits (you can give him the title without becoming Catholic, much as I can refer to the Queen of England without becoming a British subject or one o’ them tuttle boys).

But that isn’t really the point of the article, is it? The point is the best way to bring these things to light...things the upper echelons never really want to deal with. Now, I find Viganò fairly credible. I said “fairly” because the man has a few axes to grind and a mile wide look at me streak. That look at me streak didn’t do him any favors, did it, even if he’s right. You don’t hold a press conference calling out an absolute monarch before you’ve gathered your junta and expect good things to happen, regardless of whether or not you’re right. And he got sat on, as obviously he would.

What would have happened if he gathered sympathetic bishops and Cardinals first? There are plenty of them, speaking out against the abuses every day. They’re getting punished for it, everyday. On reflection, I took the article to be a subtle way of saying “plan first.”

As much as I don’t see eye to eye with this Pope, I didn’t take this as a pro-papal article, so much as a restatement of the obvious: you want to kill the king, your plan had better make sure he is dead.
You always bring to this discussion a sliver of an angle that is beneficial to look from.

I can see it that way. I didn't take it to be a pro Pope article either, since it seemed the sympathy largely resided, if not with Vigano, then with potential whistleblowers. I just didn't think the logic was well thought out.

While I see your picture of how Vigano might have better played this, I tend to think he would have tried that or a similar route had he not feared it would backfire before things went public. His move seemed less of a political play and more of a man working under a conviction in need of telling the truth.
"The Evangelium has not abrogated legends; it has hallowed them" -JRR Tolkien

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
hugodrax
A Complete Kneebiter
A Complete Kneebiter
Posts: 18133
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:07 pm

tuttle wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:56 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:50 am
tuttle wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:38 am
wosbald wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:47 am
+JMJ+

"Viganò/Ouellet" Intra-Thread Trackbacks: pg 80 / pg 80 / pg 80 / pg 81 / pg 81 / pg 81 / pg 82 / pg 84


Viganò may have made it harder to get to the truth on McCarrick [News Analysis]
Image
In this Nov. 16, 2015 file photo, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, Apostolic Nuncio to the U.S., listens to remarks at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' annual fall meeting in Baltimore. (Credit: AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

ROME — Presumably, when Italian Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò released his now-infamous statement last August claiming that Pope Francis was in on the cover-up of misconduct by ex-cardinal, and now ex-priest Theodore McCarrick, it was because he wanted to shock the system into getting to the truth.

Under the law of unintended consequences, however, it’s becoming steadily clearer that Viganò’s bombshell actually may have made it harder, not easier, to establish exactly what the Vatican knew, and when, in the McCarrick saga.

(The caveat “presumably” is obligatory, since there are countless theories about what Viganò’s real motives were in leveling his j’accuse, and finding the truth doesn’t figure especially high in some of them.)

In a nutshell, there are bishops out there — and I know this, because I’ve spoken to several — who support a thorough investigation of the McCarrick case, especially on the Vatican end, but who now hesitate to say so publicly for fear of being associated with Viganò and what’s seen as the ideological crusade against Francis he represents.

[…]

Around Roman water coolers, some believe the silence on McCarrick is due to the fact that the outcome could stain the legacy of St. John Paul II and some of his key aides, including Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz, the pontiff’s priest secretary, and Cardinal Angelo Sodano, John Paul’s Secretary of State. Both men were in power as McCarrick made his way up the ladder, and both are still alive.

Others believe that the reticence on McCarrick is due to concerns that there might be some merit in Viganò’s charges — if not that Francis was directly aware of abuse allegations and ignored them, at least that he chose not to pursue the rumors vigorously.

In any event, it’s been more than five months since the Vatican promised a review of its files, and nothing has been reported. One obvious question is why American bishops, either publicly or privately or both, aren’t being more vigorous in demanding that the Vatican deliver, since they’re the ones most exposed to pastoral blowback over the failure to do so.

One answer is this: Bishops everywhere, very much including the U.S., hesitate to do anything the boss and his team might perceive as disloyal. By now, being seen as siding with Viganò is regarded by Francis allies as virtually a sin against the Holy Spirit, and unless a bishop has been living under a rock, he’s gotten the memo.

Hence the towering irony of the situation.

Carlo Maria Viganò, who’s aspired for more than a decade to be the great Vatican whistleblower — first during his tenure at the government of the Vatican City state about alleged financial irregularities, and later about Francis and McCarrick — actually may have done more than virtually anyone else to ensure that whistles bishops might otherwise be blowing, especially in the U.S., remain silent.
I don't buy it.

Vigano shines light on truth > Pope puts him on s*** list > others who might shine light on truth scared of being put on Pope's s*** list so remain quiet > It's Vigano's fault

:confused:

I mean, I see how they're trying to spin it, but the onus is still on Francis. It's not ironic that no one "now" wants to speak up, it seems like it's par for the course. If Vigano never said a word about anything would we really be seeing these potential whistleblowing bishops blowing any whistles? The The Pope and his boys sullying of Vigano's actions "as virtually a sin against the Holy Spirit" to deter whistleblowers means the whistleblower is the ironic roadblock to more whistleblowing? Nice try.
You know, that was my general reaction, too. More style and couth, of course, and I thought in complete sentences, but I get it.

Then I read it again and my thoughts changed slightly. Of course the onus is on Pope Francis and his gang of jesuits (you can give him the title without becoming Catholic, much as I can refer to the Queen of England without becoming a British subject or one o’ them tuttle boys).

But that isn’t really the point of the article, is it? The point is the best way to bring these things to light...things the upper echelons never really want to deal with. Now, I find Viganò fairly credible. I said “fairly” because the man has a few axes to grind and a mile wide look at me streak. That look at me streak didn’t do him any favors, did it, even if he’s right. You don’t hold a press conference calling out an absolute monarch before you’ve gathered your junta and expect good things to happen, regardless of whether or not you’re right. And he got sat on, as obviously he would.

What would have happened if he gathered sympathetic bishops and Cardinals first? There are plenty of them, speaking out against the abuses every day. They’re getting punished for it, everyday. On reflection, I took the article to be a subtle way of saying “plan first.”

As much as I don’t see eye to eye with this Pope, I didn’t take this as a pro-papal article, so much as a restatement of the obvious: you want to kill the king, your plan had better make sure he is dead.
You always bring to this discussion a sliver of an angle that is beneficial to look from.

I can see it that way. I didn't take it to be a pro Pope article either, since it seemed the sympathy largely resided, if not with Vigano, then with potential whistleblowers. I just didn't think the logic was well thought out.

While I see your picture of how Vigano might have better played this, I tend to think he would have tried that or a similar route had he not feared it would backfire before things went public. His move seemed less of a political play and more of a man working under a conviction in need of telling the truth.
It’s not his first rodeo. That was a political play all day long, brother. The problem is that part of it might also be true, and the truth got crushed with the politics.
I am also of the opinion that the Jesuits should be suppressed.

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 13573
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by tuttle » Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:21 pm

hugodrax wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:07 pm
tuttle wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:56 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:50 am
tuttle wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:38 am
wosbald wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:47 am
+JMJ+

"Viganò/Ouellet" Intra-Thread Trackbacks: pg 80 / pg 80 / pg 80 / pg 81 / pg 81 / pg 81 / pg 82 / pg 84


Viganò may have made it harder to get to the truth on McCarrick [News Analysis]
Image
In this Nov. 16, 2015 file photo, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, Apostolic Nuncio to the U.S., listens to remarks at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' annual fall meeting in Baltimore. (Credit: AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

ROME — Presumably, when Italian Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò released his now-infamous statement last August claiming that Pope Francis was in on the cover-up of misconduct by ex-cardinal, and now ex-priest Theodore McCarrick, it was because he wanted to shock the system into getting to the truth.

Under the law of unintended consequences, however, it’s becoming steadily clearer that Viganò’s bombshell actually may have made it harder, not easier, to establish exactly what the Vatican knew, and when, in the McCarrick saga.

(The caveat “presumably” is obligatory, since there are countless theories about what Viganò’s real motives were in leveling his j’accuse, and finding the truth doesn’t figure especially high in some of them.)

In a nutshell, there are bishops out there — and I know this, because I’ve spoken to several — who support a thorough investigation of the McCarrick case, especially on the Vatican end, but who now hesitate to say so publicly for fear of being associated with Viganò and what’s seen as the ideological crusade against Francis he represents.

[…]

Around Roman water coolers, some believe the silence on McCarrick is due to the fact that the outcome could stain the legacy of St. John Paul II and some of his key aides, including Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz, the pontiff’s priest secretary, and Cardinal Angelo Sodano, John Paul’s Secretary of State. Both men were in power as McCarrick made his way up the ladder, and both are still alive.

Others believe that the reticence on McCarrick is due to concerns that there might be some merit in Viganò’s charges — if not that Francis was directly aware of abuse allegations and ignored them, at least that he chose not to pursue the rumors vigorously.

In any event, it’s been more than five months since the Vatican promised a review of its files, and nothing has been reported. One obvious question is why American bishops, either publicly or privately or both, aren’t being more vigorous in demanding that the Vatican deliver, since they’re the ones most exposed to pastoral blowback over the failure to do so.

One answer is this: Bishops everywhere, very much including the U.S., hesitate to do anything the boss and his team might perceive as disloyal. By now, being seen as siding with Viganò is regarded by Francis allies as virtually a sin against the Holy Spirit, and unless a bishop has been living under a rock, he’s gotten the memo.

Hence the towering irony of the situation.

Carlo Maria Viganò, who’s aspired for more than a decade to be the great Vatican whistleblower — first during his tenure at the government of the Vatican City state about alleged financial irregularities, and later about Francis and McCarrick — actually may have done more than virtually anyone else to ensure that whistles bishops might otherwise be blowing, especially in the U.S., remain silent.
I don't buy it.

Vigano shines light on truth > Pope puts him on s*** list > others who might shine light on truth scared of being put on Pope's s*** list so remain quiet > It's Vigano's fault

:confused:

I mean, I see how they're trying to spin it, but the onus is still on Francis. It's not ironic that no one "now" wants to speak up, it seems like it's par for the course. If Vigano never said a word about anything would we really be seeing these potential whistleblowing bishops blowing any whistles? The The Pope and his boys sullying of Vigano's actions "as virtually a sin against the Holy Spirit" to deter whistleblowers means the whistleblower is the ironic roadblock to more whistleblowing? Nice try.
You know, that was my general reaction, too. More style and couth, of course, and I thought in complete sentences, but I get it.

Then I read it again and my thoughts changed slightly. Of course the onus is on Pope Francis and his gang of jesuits (you can give him the title without becoming Catholic, much as I can refer to the Queen of England without becoming a British subject or one o’ them tuttle boys).

But that isn’t really the point of the article, is it? The point is the best way to bring these things to light...things the upper echelons never really want to deal with. Now, I find Viganò fairly credible. I said “fairly” because the man has a few axes to grind and a mile wide look at me streak. That look at me streak didn’t do him any favors, did it, even if he’s right. You don’t hold a press conference calling out an absolute monarch before you’ve gathered your junta and expect good things to happen, regardless of whether or not you’re right. And he got sat on, as obviously he would.

What would have happened if he gathered sympathetic bishops and Cardinals first? There are plenty of them, speaking out against the abuses every day. They’re getting punished for it, everyday. On reflection, I took the article to be a subtle way of saying “plan first.”

As much as I don’t see eye to eye with this Pope, I didn’t take this as a pro-papal article, so much as a restatement of the obvious: you want to kill the king, your plan had better make sure he is dead.
You always bring to this discussion a sliver of an angle that is beneficial to look from.

I can see it that way. I didn't take it to be a pro Pope article either, since it seemed the sympathy largely resided, if not with Vigano, then with potential whistleblowers. I just didn't think the logic was well thought out.

While I see your picture of how Vigano might have better played this, I tend to think he would have tried that or a similar route had he not feared it would backfire before things went public. His move seemed less of a political play and more of a man working under a conviction in need of telling the truth.
It’s not his first rodeo. That was a political play all day long, brother. The problem is that part of it might also be true, and the truth got crushed with the politics.
But my point is that had he been more concerned with politics over truth, and put the feelers out to gather a cadre of bishops, the truth would have likely been crushed before anything became public. I'm saying his going public in the way he did seemed to indicate that, political though it may have been, it was the best move he had to make the biggest impact.

Saying he shot himself in the foot in the way he got the truth out sort of ignores the fact that he was riddled with bullets from head to toe by those he wanted to expose. The real roadblocks and truth crushers (in this case) are Pope Francis and his boys.
"The Evangelium has not abrogated legends; it has hallowed them" -JRR Tolkien

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
hugodrax
A Complete Kneebiter
A Complete Kneebiter
Posts: 18133
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:48 pm

I hear you, sir, but I dont agree with you. Or rather, in the interests of charity, perhaps we should say neither side looks good. Pope Francis wont justify himself against the unsubstantiated words of a high ranking bureaucrat, and the bureaucrat wont acknowledge that his word as a gentleman isnt enough to remove a head of state.

Vigano needs proof. Vigano doesnt have it. Maybe that means Vigano was doomed no matter what he did.

But I dont think for a second he was murdered. That archbishop committed suicide by Pope, if you ask me.
I am also of the opinion that the Jesuits should be suppressed.

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 19760
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:26 am

+JMJ+

Sixth year may go down as the most decisive in Francis' papacy [Opinion]
Image
Pope Francis arrives for his general audience in St. Peter's Square at the Vatican Feb. 27. (CNS/Reuters/Yaraara Nardi)

It was the early afternoon Eastern time when the smoke started to billow from the chimney atop the Sistine Chapel. At first, it was hard to tell if it was white or not, but as the camera stayed trained on it, and the TV anchors debated its color, the smoke grew whiter and whiter, and then the bells of St. Peter's Basilica began to ring. Habemus papam.

It has been six years to the day since the cardinals elected Jorge Mario Bergoglio as pope, and Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, the senior cardinal deacon, announced: Qui sibi nomen imposuit Franciscum.

The new pope emerged on the loggia wearing a simple white cassock and greeted the people gathered in the square below with the simple words of greeting: "Buona sera." The choice of name indicated a concern for the poor, and the simplicity of his manner suggested a less exalted or, at any rate, a less fancy papacy.

Unlike his concern for the poor and a more simple papal style that were immediately apparent, something not discernible that first night turned out to be foundational: Pope Francis has retrieved a sense of synodality that had been obscured, but never eliminated, after almost two centuries of Ultramontanist ecclesiology. As Jesuit Fr. Antonio Spadaro, one of the Holy Father's closest confidants, wrote earlier this week:
First of all, the Pontiff has given the Church a synodal "rhythm" through which in six years three synods (on family and on youth) were celebrated, a synodal encounter (on the protection of minors) was held and the Synod on the Amazon is in preparation. The latter will have — as is already well understood now — a universal value, certainly not just regional. Reform is not the gesture of an isolated Don Quixote, but is the fruit of a long process of involvement for the Church.
It is hard to overstate how significant this change is: Throughout the post-conciliar era, there has been a tug of war between those who wished to pursue new avenues opened by the Second Vatican Council and those who wanted to restrain any new pursuits, and as time went on, the forces of retrenchment appeared to be winning. Nowhere was this more evident than in the long years of St. Pope John Paul II in which synods of bishops became meaningless.

[…]

Image
Pope Francis poses for a group photo with bishops and participants at the Synod of Bishops on young people at the Vatican Oct. 27, 2018. (CNS/EPA/Fabio Frustaci)

The pope invites us to a different way of being a Christian church in which the new evangelization is no longer tied up with technological, still less managerial, questions, as too often happened here in the U.S. under John Paul II and Benedict XVI, as if learning to use Twitter was the heart of the matter. Under Francis, the new evangelization means leaving our sacristies and getting our hands dirty in the streets. It is about getting back to basics, and nothing is more basic that seeking Jesus where he can always be found, among the poor.

I have said it before but will say it again: The Catholic Church in this country was in danger of becoming an upper-class club for people with conservative politics and conservative sexual ethics. The influx of Latino immigrants has combined with the leadership of Francis to make that danger far more remote.

This synodal approach has frustrated not only some conservative cardinals. Some liberal Catholics are frustrated too. They want change and they want it now. They know the outcomes they seek and want to see Francis embrace them and ratify them for the universal church.

But Francis does not think it is his role to push anything down people's throats. Not only does he understand, as his predecessors did, that the Petrine ministry is about preserving the unity of the church, he understands that only a synodal church can genuinely restore the unity of the church.

Besides — and here is the real rub — I believe Francis is more concerned about how we follow Christ than he is with any particular outcome, still less agenda. He worries that if we are too programmatic, we will only succeed in enacting our own desires. Francis leaves the determination of outcomes to the Lord.

Nowhere was this pope's willingness to leave room for God to act more obvious than in the silence he kept after the ugly and insidious denunciation of his leadership leveled by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò last August. No PR specialist would have counseled silence. Twitter and other venues for commentary were rife with speculations and suspicions, all of them implying Francis' guilt or stupidity, as to why the pope would not respond.

Yet, on a first reading of Viganò's screed, Francis knew that there were as many falsehoods in that text as not, and in the days and weeks that followed, others reached the same conclusion. In such an unprecedented moment, Francis did not turn to his own resources but let the truth manifest itself.

In that same article cited above, Spadaro writes, "Francis is at this point as well the only global leader who can give a message of hope to humanity. And in this regard, documents like the encyclical Laudato sì have led the church on a collision course against those powers that are imprinting a nationalistic, populist and fundamentalist direction on the political dynamics of our world."

The observation about being on a collision course is certainly accurate, even if EWTN and other conservative Catholic venues are shy about admitting it as they continue to defend Trump whenever possible.

[…]

Image
Pope Francis, cardinals and bishops attend a penitential liturgy during a meeting on the protection of minors in the church at the Vatican Feb. 23. (CNS/Evandro Inetti, pool)

The sixth year may go down as the most decisive in Francis' papacy. His decision to convoke a meeting of all the presidents of the world's episcopal conferences not only was an unprecedented, and overdue, response to the sex abuse crisis, but he did not predetermine the outcome. He insisted the bishops take ownership of the problem, and not simply revert to Rome for leadership, or its lack.

Yes, that means there were no immediate "solutions" to the crisis, but life does not offer such solutions except as false dreams. Synodality is about much more than simply a different mode of decision-making. It is about putting childish ways aside and becoming adult Christian disciples. It carries forward the vision and the ecclesiology of Vatican II and, more importantly, of the Gospels.

The clergy sex abuse mess has become a threshold issue for many Christians: If we can't get it right at long last, why stay? I think Francis continued to show his trust in the Lord's work among us all in this hour, and it is that work, not some management theories or accountability seminars, that will make any procedural and legal reforms real and lasting and life-giving.

This year, even more than in the previous five, Francis showed that it is not he who will enact reforms in our church. They will either emerge from the Spirit's bidding or not, and perhaps our role is first to get out of the way with all of our plans and our agendas.

The night of his election, I had the sense that this papacy was going to be different and a verse from Isaiah came to mind: "Behold, I am doing a new thing; now it springs forth; do you not perceive it?" This last year, I perceived it more deeply than before.

ImageImage

"For this reason, on June 1, 1951 … we did speak of the right of people to migrate, which right is founded in the very nature of land."
— Pope Pius XII, Exsul Familia Nazarethana

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 19760
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Mon Mar 18, 2019 9:21 am

+JMJ+

Intra-Thread Trackbacks: pg 78 / pg 78 / pg 79 / pg 79


Vatican-China agreement motivated by mission, cardinal says
Image
The faithful attend Mass at Beijing's South Catholic Church Sept. 29, 2018. In a new book, the Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, writes that the Vatican's recent agreement with the Chinese government was motivated by a desire to spread the Gospel and assure freedom of the church. (Credit: Jason Lee, Reuters via CNS)

ROME — The Vatican’s tentative agreement with the government of mainland China obviously has a diplomatic component, but it was motivated by a desire to spread the Gospel and ensure the appropriate freedom of the Catholic Church, the Vatican secretary of state wrote.

A firm belief that the Catholic Church truly is “catholic” or universal “pushes the Holy See to nurture no distrust or hostility toward any country, but to follow the way of dialogue in order to reduce distances, overcome misunderstandings and avoid new divisions,” Cardinal Pietro Parolin wrote in the preface to a new book.

The book, The Church in China, is a collection of essays published in the Jesuit journal La Civilta Cattolica and reflects themes treated by the “China Forum for Civilizational Dialogue,” a project of the journal and Georgetown University.

[…]

Parolin, writing in the book’s preface, acknowledged that “many problems remain for the life of the church in China,” but he insisted the provisional agreement “is not so much a point of arrival as a starting point.”

He also acknowledged a sentiment among critics of the agreement who believe it ignores the courageous faith of Catholic bishops, priests and laity who for decades refused to cooperate with the government’s Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, worshipping underground and maintaining their ties to the Vatican.

“Today, as always, the church does not forget the sacrifice of so many of her sons and daughters in China,” the cardinal wrote, “but in light of their example, the church looks for the most opportune ways to reach those who still do not know the Good News and desire a greater witness from all who call themselves Christian.”

“History,” he said, “often forces religious matters and political issues, ecclesial themes and cultural discussions, moral questions and social drama, into inextricable knots,” and the provisional agreement is an attempt to untie those bonds so that the faith can flourish in China.

Much of the cardinal’s preface reflected on the 100th anniversary of Pope Benedict XV’s document on mission, Maximum Illud, which, Parolin said, urged a renewal of missionary outreach to people who had never heard the Gospel, but also insisted that European and other Western missionaries must not export their cultural, social and political views along with faith in Christ.

“The proclamation of the Gospel in China cannot be separated from a stance of respect, esteem and trust toward the Chinese people and their legitimate state authorities,” Parolin said.

“The aims and objectives of the action of the Holy See, specifically in a Chinese context, remain the same as ever: the ‘salus animarum’ (salvation of souls) and the ‘libertas ecclesiae’ (freedom of the church),” the cardinal wrote.

[…]

ImageImage

"For this reason, on June 1, 1951 … we did speak of the right of people to migrate, which right is founded in the very nature of land."
— Pope Pius XII, Exsul Familia Nazarethana

User avatar
Hovannes
Minister of Unanswered Threads
Minister of Unanswered Threads
Posts: 24536
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: In the fertile San Joaquin Valley

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by Hovannes » Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:46 pm

wosbald wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 9:21 am
+JMJ+

Intra-Thread Trackbacks: pg 78 / pg 78 / pg 79 / pg 79


Vatican-China agreement motivated by mission, cardinal says
Image
The faithful attend Mass at Beijing's South Catholic Church Sept. 29, 2018. In a new book, the Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, writes that the Vatican's recent agreement with the Chinese government was motivated by a desire to spread the Gospel and assure freedom of the church. (Credit: Jason Lee, Reuters via CNS)

ROME — The Vatican’s tentative agreement with the government of mainland China obviously has a diplomatic component, but it was motivated by a desire to spread the Gospel and ensure the appropriate freedom of the Catholic Church, the Vatican secretary of state wrote.

A firm belief that the Catholic Church truly is “catholic” or universal “pushes the Holy See to nurture no distrust or hostility toward any country, but to follow the way of dialogue in order to reduce distances, overcome misunderstandings and avoid new divisions,” Cardinal Pietro Parolin wrote in the preface to a new book.

The book, The Church in China, is a collection of essays published in the Jesuit journal La Civilta Cattolica and reflects themes treated by the “China Forum for Civilizational Dialogue,” a project of the journal and Georgetown University.

[…]

Parolin, writing in the book’s preface, acknowledged that “many problems remain for the life of the church in China,” but he insisted the provisional agreement “is not so much a point of arrival as a starting point.”

He also acknowledged a sentiment among critics of the agreement who believe it ignores the courageous faith of Catholic bishops, priests and laity who for decades refused to cooperate with the government’s Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, worshipping underground and maintaining their ties to the Vatican.

“Today, as always, the church does not forget the sacrifice of so many of her sons and daughters in China,” the cardinal wrote, “but in light of their example, the church looks for the most opportune ways to reach those who still do not know the Good News and desire a greater witness from all who call themselves Christian.”

“History,” he said, “often forces religious matters and political issues, ecclesial themes and cultural discussions, moral questions and social drama, into inextricable knots,” and the provisional agreement is an attempt to untie those bonds so that the faith can flourish in China.

Much of the cardinal’s preface reflected on the 100th anniversary of Pope Benedict XV’s document on mission, Maximum Illud, which, Parolin said, urged a renewal of missionary outreach to people who had never heard the Gospel, but also insisted that European and other Western missionaries must not export their cultural, social and political views along with faith in Christ.

“The proclamation of the Gospel in China cannot be separated from a stance of respect, esteem and trust toward the Chinese people and their legitimate state authorities,” Parolin said.

“The aims and objectives of the action of the Holy See, specifically in a Chinese context, remain the same as ever: the ‘salus animarum’ (salvation of souls) and the ‘libertas ecclesiae’ (freedom of the church),” the cardinal wrote.

[…]
This makes throwing Chinese Catholics under the bus sound oh so cavalier.

“The proclamation of the Gospel in China cannot be separated from a stance of respect, esteem and trust toward the Chinese people and their legitimate state authorities,” Parolin said."

As legitimate state authority as Joseph Stalin?
"What doesn't kill you, gives you a lot of unhealthy coping mechanisms and a really dark sense of humor."

User avatar
hugodrax
A Complete Kneebiter
A Complete Kneebiter
Posts: 18133
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:38 pm

Hovannes wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:46 pm
wosbald wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 9:21 am
+JMJ+

Intra-Thread Trackbacks: pg 78 / pg 78 / pg 79 / pg 79


Vatican-China agreement motivated by mission, cardinal says
Image
The faithful attend Mass at Beijing's South Catholic Church Sept. 29, 2018. In a new book, the Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, writes that the Vatican's recent agreement with the Chinese government was motivated by a desire to spread the Gospel and assure freedom of the church. (Credit: Jason Lee, Reuters via CNS)

ROME — The Vatican’s tentative agreement with the government of mainland China obviously has a diplomatic component, but it was motivated by a desire to spread the Gospel and ensure the appropriate freedom of the Catholic Church, the Vatican secretary of state wrote.

A firm belief that the Catholic Church truly is “catholic” or universal “pushes the Holy See to nurture no distrust or hostility toward any country, but to follow the way of dialogue in order to reduce distances, overcome misunderstandings and avoid new divisions,” Cardinal Pietro Parolin wrote in the preface to a new book.

The book, The Church in China, is a collection of essays published in the Jesuit journal La Civilta Cattolica and reflects themes treated by the “China Forum for Civilizational Dialogue,” a project of the journal and Georgetown University.

[…]

Parolin, writing in the book’s preface, acknowledged that “many problems remain for the life of the church in China,” but he insisted the provisional agreement “is not so much a point of arrival as a starting point.”

He also acknowledged a sentiment among critics of the agreement who believe it ignores the courageous faith of Catholic bishops, priests and laity who for decades refused to cooperate with the government’s Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, worshipping underground and maintaining their ties to the Vatican.

“Today, as always, the church does not forget the sacrifice of so many of her sons and daughters in China,” the cardinal wrote, “but in light of their example, the church looks for the most opportune ways to reach those who still do not know the Good News and desire a greater witness from all who call themselves Christian.”

“History,” he said, “often forces religious matters and political issues, ecclesial themes and cultural discussions, moral questions and social drama, into inextricable knots,” and the provisional agreement is an attempt to untie those bonds so that the faith can flourish in China.

Much of the cardinal’s preface reflected on the 100th anniversary of Pope Benedict XV’s document on mission, Maximum Illud, which, Parolin said, urged a renewal of missionary outreach to people who had never heard the Gospel, but also insisted that European and other Western missionaries must not export their cultural, social and political views along with faith in Christ.

“The proclamation of the Gospel in China cannot be separated from a stance of respect, esteem and trust toward the Chinese people and their legitimate state authorities,” Parolin said.

“The aims and objectives of the action of the Holy See, specifically in a Chinese context, remain the same as ever: the ‘salus animarum’ (salvation of souls) and the ‘libertas ecclesiae’ (freedom of the church),” the cardinal wrote.

[…]
This makes throwing Chinese Catholics under the bus sound oh so cavalier.

“The proclamation of the Gospel in China cannot be separated from a stance of respect, esteem and trust toward the Chinese people and their legitimate state authorities,” Parolin said."

As legitimate state authority as Joseph Stalin?
Hovannes, I think that's the problem with dealing with idea men. They see the beauty of the thought and don't see the ugliness of the dead bodies...true revolutionaries would discount the dead as a necessary step towards the implementation of their ideas.

Now none of this is me saying we're dealing with revolutionaries or communists in any way shape or form. I'm just saying the intelligentsia, the "chattering class", if you will, never see life in the trenches. You and I live in the trenches and not in the Curia.

I pray every day that I'm interpreting things the wrong way. I dont want to be a revolutionary or a reactionary. I just want to be Catholic.
I am also of the opinion that the Jesuits should be suppressed.

User avatar
Hovannes
Minister of Unanswered Threads
Minister of Unanswered Threads
Posts: 24536
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: In the fertile San Joaquin Valley

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by Hovannes » Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:55 pm

Of course, La Civilta Cattolica is a Jesuit journal.
Just sayin'
"What doesn't kill you, gives you a lot of unhealthy coping mechanisms and a really dark sense of humor."

User avatar
hugodrax
A Complete Kneebiter
A Complete Kneebiter
Posts: 18133
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:13 pm

Hovannes wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:55 pm
Of course, La Civilta Cattolica is a Jesuit journal.
Just sayin'
Wosbald and Father Rosica have never been photographed together. Just sayin'.
I am also of the opinion that the Jesuits should be suppressed.

Post Reply