Former top Vatican official says pope should resign over abuse crisis

[luckyshot]

GOOD FAITH? YOU STILL HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO MY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROVEN AND GUILTY MEMBERS OF THE POPES DIRECT INNER CIRCLE! Will you not condemn his choice of advisors?

I see using the word peep was misplaced, but I believe you got the jist of my point. Why are they focusing on theological differences or liberal vs conservative narrative instead of the ACTUAL ISSUE which is what Pope Francis knew and when. Did he reinstate McCarrick after hearing of these valid allegations? Why wasn't it a liberal war against JPII and now it's a conservative war against Francis. You know why, because it wasn't! Neither is this. It's valid allegations.

You see that, I also acknowledge him as Pope and hold NO contradicting theological opinions outside of the faith. So sorry not a schismatic or heretic.

How am I on the record? By saying I will follow Orthodox Bishops over Hetrodox ones? Or by denying the heresy of ultramontaneism? Stop being dramatic and silly. Calling someone a schismatic because they dislike the novelty introduced after VII and prefer the Latin Mass is childish. I would suggest you attend a better cathechism class if you would pronounce me a schismatic for preferring the Nearly 2000 year old liturgy to the 60 year old one.

And again I admire your zeal, but really your just silly. While I might have to take it under strong consideration, his personal teaching on CURRENT social problems are not dogmatic. If and when he makes a dogmatic pronouncement I will abide.

What does it matter who it occurred under if Francis played an active part in another cover up. Why is this an issue? They were all gulity to some degree. Just because McCarrick happened under Paul VI through JPII doesn't mean Francis gets free pass to bring McCarrick back from the restrictions imposed by Benedict.

what about covering for Maradiaga and Daneels. What about the priest inzoli who Benedict defrocked, Inzoli was brought back by Francis and he abused again! What do you say about this?

I implore you to look up these names then tell me why the Holy Father would keep company with them? Is it not scandalous? This wasn't about redemption and mercy. They where brought back to active duty not years of pennance and prayer in a remote monastery.

P.S. please tell me all these new dogmatic teachings. I'll be waiting.

If you think you get to be a Catholic without an attitude of OBEDIENCE to the Pope’s moral teachings, you are wrong. Since the official definition of papal infaliblity in 1870, only one dogmatic pronouncement has been declared “from Peter’s chair”— the bodily Assumption of Mary. So, by your argument a Catholic doesn’t have to abide by any of the Church’s teachings on birth control in Humanae Vitae, for example. Clerical celibacy is also non-dogmatic, so, under your thinking, presumably optional. Stop being silly. Either start being obedient to the Church’s moral teachings— including Francis’ instruction on attempting mercy, the environment, migrants, etc.— or stop pretending to speak for Catholicism (whatever you privately consider yourself). The same applies to the schismatics at right wing “Catholic” media outlets. There is no right wing Catholicism. If a media outlet is much more likely to support President Trump’s politics than Pope Francis’s ethical teachings, whatever it is, it isn’t Catholic. I wish Pope Francis would make a BOLD public statement to this effect. There are a lot of people who take His Holiness’s mercy very much for granted. He is undoubtedly much wiser— and holier— than I am in this regard.

As far as Francis’ treatment of men involved with coverups, I believe— and so far, reality has borne this out— that in his eyes these abuse issues were mostly in the past. He did not appreciate, to his discredit, how glaring the need for decisive, public action on former abusers is to restore trust in the Church. I wish he had been harsher— much harsher— with McCarrick. But don’t pretend Benedict was harsh... or your “heroic” Vigano. Speaking of who knew what when, what did Vigano know in 2012 when he called McCarrick (who was, according to Vigano, ordered to a life of penance and fasting at the time) “very much loved from us all” at a gala event?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/01/world/europe/pope-francis-benedict-mccarrick.html
Whatever Benedict ordered— and we still only have Vigano’s word that such an order occurred— it was not enforced. In fact, McCarrick was present at Benedicts retirement where the two shared very cordial greetings.

 

[spamking]

Getting married doesn’t stop people from molesting kids.

It’s insane you even think that’s the issue

I never said it would stop anyone from doing anything . . .

But thanks for avoiding the question.

 

[jax7]

If you think you get to be a Catholic without an attitude of OBEDIENCE to the Pope’s moral teachings, you are wrong. Since the official definition of papal infaliblity in 1870, only one dogmatic pronouncement has been declared “from Peter’s chair”— the bodily Assumption of Mary. So, by your argument a Catholic doesn’t have to abide by any of the Church’s teachings on birth control in Humanae Vitae, for example. Clerical celibacy is also non-dogmatic, so, under your thinking, presumably optional. Stop being silly. Either start being obedient to the Church’s moral teachings— including Francis’ instruction on attempting mercy, the environment, migrants, etc.— or stop pretending to speak for Catholicism (whatever you privately consider yourself). The same applies to the schismatics at right wing “Catholic” media outlets. There is no right wing Catholicism. If a media outlet is much more likely to support President Trump’s politics than Pope Francis’s ethical teachings, whatever it is, it isn’t Catholic. I wish Pope Francis would make a BOLD public statement to this effect. There are a lot of people who take His Holiness’s mercy very much for granted. He is undoubtedly much wiser— and holier— than I am in this regard.

As far as Francis’ treatment of men involved with coverups, I believe— and so far, reality has borne this out— that in his eyes these abuse issues were mostly in the past. He did not appreciate, to his discredit, how glaring the need for decisive, public action on former abusers is to restore trust in the Church. I wish he had been harsher— much harsher— with McCarrick. But don’t pretend Benedict was harsh... or your “heroic” Vigano. Speaking of who knew what when, what did Vigano know in 2012 when he called McCarrick (who was, according to Vigano, ordered to a life of penance and fasting at the time) “very much loved from us all” at a gala event?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/01/world/europe/pope-francis-benedict-mccarrick.html
Whatever Benedict orderered— and we still only have Vigano’s word that such an order occurred— it was not enforced. In fact, McCarrick was present at Benedicts retirement where the two shared very cordial greetings.

First off, thank you for finally addressing my question on his cronies.

Second, stop throwing around the term schismatic. I don't think you know what it means. Also you have no authority to declare that anyway. Why do you think those that prefer the Latin Mass are schismatics? Would that not make you disobedient to the Last three Pope's who have actually promoted the Latin Mass through the ecclesia dei commission?

Again I challenge you to where I outright dismissed any teaching. I even said I must seriously consider his teachings (and where necessary give assent) The only thing you could claim I denied would be the confusing Amoris lattitia and the Death penalty statements which to me personally seem to be at great odds to sacred and binding dogamtic teachings. So I interpret them in light of TRADITION and go about my way. Humane Vitae by the mere fact it was defined by affirmation of all the Bishops in union with Paul VI in light of 2000 years of consistent teaching make it infallible. Next you'll be telling that JPII pronouncement on the impossibility of a female priesthood didn't sufficiently meet the requirements of infallibility.

Also how does celibacy even come into play in this little difference of opinion we have? Celibacy is a DISCIPLINE of the Western or Latin Church. Eastern catholic churches have married priests. So do those attached to the Anglican rite in union with Rome. Priestly celibacy has a long history and is even biblical, but don't act as if it should be equated to dogmatic teachings. This shows you are clearly confused about Catholicism and need a little more education. While I would personally be opposed to it, Pope Francis could abolish the celibacy discipline tomorrow. On the other hand he can't abolish the dogmatic teachings on marriage or the right of a legitimate authority to impose the death penalty if needed.

I also have no problems with his teachings on the environment or migrants. Just that focusing on these issues right after this bombshell of a story instead of the actual accusations seems like an attempt to gain favor with those inside and outside the Church who hold these things in high regard. Or that somehow these environment positions are in some way more important than the huge homsexual and pedophile problem within the ranks of the clergy. Im pretty sure molesting a child is a graver sin than throwing a plastic bottle in the ocean. I'm more worried about the corruption and abuse which scandalizes the Church. Not many people will leave the Church if he doesn't comment on the plastic in the ocean. On the other hand many are leaving because of the lack of accountability and general lack of morals and hypocrisy within the hierarchy.

Finally there have been multiple corroborations of Vigano's statements. Many Bishops have vouched for Vigano's character and asked that these accusations be investigated.

 

[cooks1]

You can call it what you want, but a Catholic must abide by pronouncements of the Pope. There are things that I would change if I was the Pope. But I’m not.

A cult is organized around a charismatic person. The Church is not organized around a person, but an institution — apostolic succession dating back to Christ himself. As a Catholic, I do not subordinate my will and judgment to another man; I subordinate my will and judgment to the collective wisdom of two millennia of Saints unfolding into and through the present.

@jax7
Read this, please.
https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/distinctly-catholic/has-ewtn-schism-begun

This, precisely, is why Catholicism is so fucked up and out of touch right now. A bunch of otherwise bright people willingly submitting to an orthodoxy 2000 years old. Do you grasp the absurdity of that?

For fuck sakes, even the National Catholic Register has written about the importance of open dissent and criticism. And when those things are not permitted, that is symptomatic of cult behavior.

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/longenecker/4-danger-signs-of-cult-like-behavior-and-4-antidotes

A third trait of a cult is that complete loyalty is demanded of the followers. Dissent and criticism are not permitted. Those who dissent will be marginalized, excluded from decision-making and demonized. If the leaders cannot get rid of the dissenters they will be isolated and given a name. They will be “the troublemakers” or “the grumblers”.

 

[jax7]

This, precisely, is why Catholicism is so fucked up and out of touch right now. A bunch of otherwise bright people willingly submitting to an orthodoxy 2000 years old. Do you grasp the absurdity of that?

For fuck sakes, even the National Catholic Register has written about the importance of open dissent and criticism. And when those things are not permitted, that is symptomatic of cult behavior.

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/longenecker/4-danger-signs-of-cult-like-behavior-and-4-antidotes

Sorry but I have to stand with lucky on this. To follow a 2000 year old unbroken line of sacred Tradition amd dogma actually protects from would be messiahs. Because our leaders are bound to them just like everyone else, and these Traditions are readily available to all who wish to know them.

On the other hand if you practice some form of ultramontanism that it seems lucky does, where obedience to a Pope or clergy is more important than to Sacred Tradition then yes it can get a little culty.

 

[N13]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/vatican-official-says-pope-francis-should-resign-abuse-1.4799495

Can we just take a moment to appreciate just how fucked up this really is? There's an organization which has a proven record of systemic child sexual assault, from the lowest to the highest ranks, and the head of the organization knew about some of the allegations for years before they finally became public.

This is fucked up on an Alex-Jones-Lizard People-Pedophiles conspiracy level, only that it's 100% true, beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt.

Why isn't there an internationally sanctioned probe into the Catholic church which would force the Vatican to give full access to its historical records? Were this any other organization - like a business - this is exactly what would happen, while probably shutting down operations. These people belong in front of human rights tribunals, they're no better than a Milosevic or a Saddam.

The protections religions are afforded must end. They should be treated like any other organization, subject to the same scrutiny of laws that secular organizations are.

 

[N13]

 

[Devout Pessimist]

There are Buddhists sects having issues with sexual abuse too:

Buddhist group admits sexual abuse by teachers
Shambhala International leaders promise to take action against ‘abhorrent sexual behaviour’

High-ranking Buddhist monk accused of sexual abuse in China

Fears mount over scale of Buddhist sect sexual abuse

Sex in the Sangha . . . Again
Four teachers discuss the systemic issues that have led to sexual abuse in Buddhist communities

Abuse and Buddhism: Behind the Smiling Façade
Buddhism in the West is in a crisis. For years, it had benefited from a reputation too good to be true. Only now are victims of sexual abuse¹, corruption and cultic behaviour finally beginning to speak out.