Francis Must Resign if The Testimony of +Vigano is true!

[KnightofChrist]

15 minutes ago, Peace said:

Pope Francis has spoken concerning the Pennsylvania sexual abuse report. If you are referring to the recent Viganò allegations, he has also spoken concerning these. He has indicated that he believes that they are BS, that they are not worth responding to, and that anyone interested in them can look into whether the allegations are true and draw his own conclusions. Pope Francis does not have to respond to every allegation or inquiry put to him at the timing and in the manner that @KnightofChrist deems appropriate. Oh well.

There have been plenty of other Bishops, and priests in the Church who are well respected that believe the Viganò is worth an investigation. I'll provide names and sources later. Something like this, for an Archbishop make a public testimony charging the Pope and others of a massive coverup of an major crisis,  hasn't happened in hundreds of years, if ever, so to pretend it is just some "b.s." unworthy of a response is a bit silly. What matters is if what Viganò says is true or not true. Ignoring it will not make it go away. No other leader of any institution could ignore such charges.

15 minutes ago, Peace said:

Besides, that is a total non-sequitur. Failure or willingness to speak concerning sexual abuse does not make a person any more "left" or "right". Sexual abuse has nothing to do with being a liberal or a conservative. And care of the planet that God has gifted to us is a legitimate aspect of the Catholic faith, regardless of whether you desire to characterize that as a prerogative of the political left.

I never stated that his failure to speak on the testimony of Archbishop Viganò was part of a left leaning agenda. Never said anything like that, I said the media is protecting him unlike they would Benedict. Because the media supports what they believe to be Pope Francis' left leaning agenda.

15 minutes ago, Peace said:

And saying that he would rather talk about plastic in the ocean than sexual abuse is slander, plain and simple. You do not know what his intentions and motivations are.

It's objective fact he will "not say one word" about the serious charges in the Viganò testimony but he will speak about the emergency of plastic in the sea. Viganò says there is documentation that back up his charges, why not release those documents? It would be so easy to prove Viganò a liar. The charges that Viganò lays out are serious, they are not just something that we can ignore. He is lying or he is telling the truth, the only person who can tell us, who can clear up this confusion is Pope Francis. And all I've seen from him is silence, and from his defenders attacks upon Viganò. That suggest a position of weakness.

15 minutes ago, Peace said:

How the media perceives Pope Francis is also irrelevant. In the history of the world the main stream media has not accurately portrayed a pope in a single instance. And you have not listed a single thing that evidences that Pope Francis has a "left leaning agenda in other ways". But please feel free to do so. In the meantime, the Pope is Catholic.

How the media perceives any Pope is relevant to the kind of reporting they produce. How they report, or do not report, on certain events shapes the minds of millions people who consume their news.

The Pope is Catholic, I've never stated it was not. If you want me to provide evidence that the Media believes Pope Francis leans left I can certainly do that. Environmentalism and a softer stance on homosexuality are subjects where the media, rightly or wrongly, believe the Pope stands more in their corner. I don't think I really have to do that though, we all know they media does this, we have all seen it. Many of us see those articles and say they are taking the Pope out of context, or that they are misinterpreting the Pope. What is important is that the media believes they have a Pope that is in their corner on various left leaning topics and more importantly they shape the minds of their consumers.  If you really need me to do so I'll provide links later but I'm headed out the door now.

[Peace]

45 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

There have been plenty of other Bishops, and priests in the Church who are well respected that believe the Viganò is worth an investigation. I'll provide names and sources later.

Then they should investigate it, if that is what they deem proper. If Pope Francis has done something improper, then he should be held accountable for it. I have no problem with that.

Quote

Something like this, for an Archbishop make a public testimony charging the Pope and others of a massive coverup of an major crisis,  hasn't happened in hundreds of years, if ever, so to pretend it is just some "b.s." unworthy of a response is a bit silly. What matters is if what Viganò says is true or not true. Ignoring it will not make it go away. No other leader of any institution could ignore such charges.

OK. That is your opinion. That's cool.  Maybe Pope Francis is confident that the allegations are BS and that he will be vindicated without having to address the allegations himself. Perhaps he believes that responding directly would give legitimacy to the allegations that he believes are false. The pope is not God, but I try to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Quote

I never stated that his failure to speak on the testimony of Archbishop Viganò was part of a left leaning agenda. Never said anything like that, I said the media is protecting him unlike they would Benedict. Because the media supports what they believe to be Pope Francis' left leaning agenda.

Sure, the MSM likes Pope Francis more than other popes. But let's be realistic here. The MSM is full of politically left people who would love to bring down the Catholic Church. They "love" Pope Francis, but only in comparison to his predecessors. They don't love what he has to say concerning, abortion, gay marriage, contraception, and likely many other issues. You don't think they would be delighted to prove that the pope himself is guilty of protecting sexual abusers? Dude, they would love that. They would use that to further the argument that the Catholic Church is totally corrupt and has no moral authority whatsoever.

Quote

It's objective fact he will "not say one word" about the serious charges in the Viganò testimony but he will speak about the emergency of plastic in the sea.

Well if you read the interview he said that he may speak about it in the future, after media and others have investigated the matter.

Quote

Viganò says there is documentation that back up his charges, why not release those documents?

There could be a zillion reasons. Maybe he does not want to start a precedent of people expecting the disclosure of confidential documents. Maybe there are things in the documents that are sensitive. All you can do is speculate about that.

Quote

It would be so easy to prove Viganò a liar.

Maybe. Maybe not. Personally, if somebody publicly accused me of sexual abuse or of covering up sexual abuse, I would probably respond by saying "that is total BS, prove it". I wouldn't necessarily respond by opening up all of my private files to try to clear my name. I tend to think that is not a prudent course of action, but maybe that is just the lawyer in me.

Quote

The charges that Viganò lays out are serious, they are not just something that we can ignore. He is lying or he is telling the truth, the only person who can tell us, who can clear up this confusion is Pope Francis.

He told you that the accusations are BS. That sounds like clearing up confusion to me. What some seem to want is to depose the pope. The assumption seems to be that he is guilty, and that he is under an obligation to clear his name to their satisfaction. Besides the obvious fact that we have a presumption of innocence and that the accuser has the burden to prove his assertions, where exactly would this inquiry end? Pope Francis would turn over this or that document, he would make this or that statement, and then people who want him out would say "That document does not prove his innocence to my satisfaction. We demand more."

Quote

And all I've seen from him is silence, and from his defenders attacks upon Viganò. That suggest a position of weakness.

Well some people see it as weakness. Other people see is as strength. Personally, if somebody accused me of something that I was confident I did not do, I would think it would be stronger just to respond by saying "No, that is BS." If I spend the next week writing long essays and so forth to try to clear myself, it seems as though I am on the defensive.

That is not to say that I am right and you are wrong. But you can interpret all of this stuff in various different ways.

Quote

How the media perceives any Pope is relevant to the kind of reporting they produce. How they report, or do not report, on certain events shapes the minds of millions people who consume their news.

Sure, and many millions of other people can cut through the media BS.

But you are right. In that sense the media is relevant. But what I meant was that the media view of Pope Francis is irrelevant to the original matter we were discussing, that is, whether Pope Francis has a left leaning agenda.

Quote

The Pope is Catholic, I've never stated it was not. If you want me to provide evidence that the Media believes Pope Francis leans left I can certainly do that. Environmentalism and a softer stance on homosexuality are subjects where the media, rightly or wrongly, believe the Pope stands more in their corner. I don't think I really have to do that though, we all know they media does this, we have all seen it. Many of us see those articles and say they are taking the Pope out of context, or that they are misinterpreting the Pope. What is important is that the media believes they have a Pope that is in their corner on various left leaning topics and more importantly they shape the minds of their consumers.  If you really need me to do so I'll provide links later but I'm headed out the door now.

Well I am sure you can do that, but we were not discussing whether the media believes Pope Francis has a left leaning agenda. We were discussing your statement in which you indicated that Pope Francis has a left leaning agenda, and whether that  is true.

[KnightofChrist]

On 9/2/2018 at 5:48 PM, Peace said:

Then they should investigate it, if that is what they deem proper. If Pope Francis has done something improper, then he should be held accountable for it. I have no problem with that.

OK. That is your opinion. That's cool.  Maybe Pope Francis is confident that the allegations are BS and that he will be vindicated without having to address the allegations himself. Perhaps he believes that responding directly would give legitimacy to the allegations that he believes are false. The pope is not God, but I try to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Silence has been the failed policy of the sexual abuse crisis since the start. It has lead to wider abuse and wider coverup. It's a failed policy, it can't be defended or practiced anymore if we hope to stop the abuse.

On 9/2/2018 at 5:48 PM, Peace said:

Sure, the MSM likes Pope Francis more than other popes. But let's be realistic here. The MSM is full of politically left people who would love to bring down the Catholic Church. They "love" Pope Francis, but only in comparison to his predecessors. They don't love what he has to say concerning, abortion, gay marriage, contraception, and likely many other issues. You don't think they would be delighted to prove that the pope himself is guilty of protecting sexual abusers? Dude, they would love that. They would use that to further the argument that the Catholic Church is totally corrupt and has no moral authority whatsoever.

That the media likes Pope Francis more than other popes is my point and because of this they are protecting him where they would not protect other popes.

 

On 9/2/2018 at 5:48 PM, Peace said:

Well if you read the interview he said that he may speak about it in the future, after media and others have investigated the matter.

Again, silence has failed, silence lead to more abuse, and more cover up. It's time for the silence to end. What do you think of the other cases where Pope Francis protected or promoted abusers or abuse protectors? I posted earlier in the thread.

On 9/2/2018 at 5:48 PM, Peace said:

There could be a zillion reasons. Maybe he does not want to start a precedent of people expecting the disclosure of confidential documents. Maybe there are things in the documents that are sensitive. All you can do is speculate about that.

Could be aliens or lizard people. We just don't know.

On 9/2/2018 at 5:48 PM, Peace said:

Maybe. Maybe not. Personally, if somebody publicly accused me of sexual abuse or of covering up sexual abuse, I would probably respond by saying "that is total BS, prove it". I wouldn't necessarily respond by opening up all of my private files to try to clear my name. I tend to think that is not a prudent course of action, but maybe that is just the lawyer in me.

He told you that the accusations are BS. That sounds like clearing up confusion to me. What some seem to want is to depose the pope. The assumption seems to be that he is guilty, and that he is under an obligation to clear his name to their satisfaction. Besides the obvious fact that we have a presumption of innocence and that the accuser has the burden to prove his assertions, where exactly would this inquiry end? Pope Francis would turn over this or that document, he would make this or that statement, and then people who want him out would say "That document does not prove his innocence to my satisfaction. We demand more."

Well some people see it as weakness. Other people see is as strength. Personally, if somebody accused me of something that I was confident I did not do, I would think it would be stronger just to respond by saying "No, that is BS." If I spend the next week writing long essays and so forth to try to clear myself, it seems as though I am on the defensive.

That is not to say that I am right and you are wrong. But you can interpret all of this stuff in various different ways.

Sure, and many millions of other people can cut through the media BS.

But you are right. In that sense the media is relevant. But what I meant was that the media view of Pope Francis is irrelevant to the original matter we were discussing, that is, whether Pope Francis has a left leaning agenda.

Well I am sure you can do that, but we were not discussing whether the media believes Pope Francis has a left leaning agenda. We were discussing your statement in which you indicated that Pope Francis has a left leaning agenda, and whether that  is true.

 

[Peace]

17 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Silence has been the failed policy of the sexual abuse crisis since the start. It has lead to wider abuse and wider coverup. It's a failed policy, it can't be defended or practiced anymore if we hope to stop the abuse.

That analogy only works if you assume that Pope Francis is guilty of the things that he was accused of.

17 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

That the media likes Pope Francis more than other popes is my point and because of this they are protecting him where they would not protect other popes.

I would not call it "protection". But I would agree that the MSM is more likely to go after prior popes than Pope Francis, because they perceive him as being more in line with a politically left agenda. But there are plenty of media outlets, like Church Militant or what have you, that would love to take a shot at Pope Francis. And there are still plenty of anti-Catholics in the MSM who would love to do so as well. I certainly do not think the MSM is so pro-Pope Francis that they would would allow him to get away with a scandal such as a sexual abuse coverup. I guess we will have to disagree on this point.

17 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Again, silence has failed, silence lead to more abuse, and more cover up. It's time for the silence to end. What do you think of the other cases where Pope Francis protected or promoted abusers or abuse protectors? I posted earlier in the thread.

I didn't read all of that, sorry. I will tell you what, if you address the original question that I asked you about, that is, the basis for your assertion that Pope Francis has a "left leaning agenda", I will take a look at that material and let you know what I think about it.

 

[tinytherese]

If it turns out that St. John Paul, or Pope Emeritus Benedict, or Pope Francis covered up abuses, I might not ever bring myself to read any of the good things they've written again. 

I've benefitted so much from what JP2 said, did, and wrote and so have others. Well, he isn't my God anyway.

[Ash Wednesday]

I still believe Pope John Paul II is a saint. The only saint who never made mistakes in their lives was the Blessed Mother. All that said, I have not been comfortable with all the fast-track canonization that's gone on with so many of the post Vatican II popes recently and there is a lot to be said for just letting someone's legacy wait and be judged by time and history, rather than current emotional response, both good and bad.

I am not sure we will ever really get full answers from the Vatican. I'm somewhat torn about that. I don't think it's realistic for the laity to expect the Vatican to be transparent -- either they are too embarrassed and there are people in power that don't want to lose that power, or else they have that age old fear of scandal and feel that "you can't handle the truth".

Though if it's God's will for anything to be brought to light, so be it. 

"Better for truth to be known than scandal covered up" -Saint Augustine.

[Guest]

 

2 hours ago, Ash Wednesday said:

I still believe Pope John Paul II is a saint. The only saint who never made mistakes in their lives was the Blessed Mother.

 As I understand it, saint are canonized because of heroic virtue in their lives, not because they never made mistakes.  We are all sinners, including the canonized saints who have gone before us........except Our Lady.

[tinytherese]

3 hours ago, Ash Wednesday said:

I still believe Pope John Paul II is a saint. The only saint who never made mistakes in their lives was the Blessed Mother. All that said, I have not been comfortable with all the fast-track canonization that's gone on with so many of the post Vatican II popes recently and there is a lot to be said for just letting someone's legacy wait and be judged by time and history, rather than current emotional response, both good and bad.

Except this is an epically huge mistake on a whole other scale, especially if there wasn't any repentance and penance done. I agree that fast-track canonization is a problem no matter how popular the person is. It can cloud the judgment of people. What's the rush? If God wills them to be canonized it'll happen.