The Pope's comments on Civil Unions is fake news- he is in line with the CDF guidance...

[Aloysius]

@KnightofChrist,

it's not unreasonable to suspect Pope Francis might be playing a PR game, let something slip out or purposefully let it be misinterpreted and then let the officials correct it, while remaining silent himself.  If that's what he's doing, it's unfortunate.

IF that's what he's doing, that doesn't mean you should come out with the automatic assumption that the quotes from the media are accurate.  Because on the other hand he's also not coming out and correcting the correctors, part of that PR game is that he does indeed still allow his position to be shown to be the officially correct position.  So out of charity to the Pope, you should amplify the interpretation that gives him the benefit of the doubt until / unless he himself comes out to say otherwise.  The suspicion you have is not unreasonable, IMO, given how often this happens; an alternate hypothesis is that he's not doing it with conscious intent but he's negligent in who he grants interviews to and how he words things, unintentionally.  With either suspicion, it makes sense to amplify the fact that Pope Francis as pope has not actually contradicted these doctrines--so long as doubt remains, it seems like just a prideful thing to say you're so afraid of being 'fooled' that you wouldn't allow the interpretation that gives the benefit of the doubt.  Not saying to accept all backflips; but at least in this case there seems a quite clear aspect in which things were being touted out of context.

Basically, IF he's playing that kind of PR game, you only play into it by amplifying the interpretation that's going around.   IF he's just being negligent in his interviews, by amplifying the misinterpreted message you're not correcting the harm caused by that misinterpreted message but reinforcing that harm.

ultimately, though, I do agree with you that Pope Francis himself should directly correct the record in these matters.  it is unfortunate that he does not (particularly with the scalfari interviews)

[HumilityAndPatience]

5 hours ago, Anastasia said:

I looked into the article you mentioned. Briefly, an argument that
“Pope Francis seems to see civil unions for homosexual couples in a similar light: not the ideal but preferable to “gay marriage.”
cannot really stand.

Civil Unions are defined and proposed by the state. Marriage by the Church. Pope Francis proposed CU's as an alternative to Gay Marriage in order to protect classically defined marriage- his proposal of CU's came AFTER the global legislative impasse had been overcome. This is an important point.

5 hours ago, Anastasia said:

The most important in the current situation is the silence of the Pope - in even if he now says something it will not erase its effect.

There is still chance for him to clarify... (although some like me feel that he is actually in line with CDF/Church teaching on the matter)

5 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

Scalfari is just one reporter. It would not in fact take long for Pope Francis to call out the errors and correct the record. Even if he will not do that to continue to give interviews with him and other 'dishonest' reporters is at best unwise. Why let someone interview yo when you know that person will misquote you or outright lie about what you stated?

I don't disagree with you on Scalfari, to be honest. I do find it concerning that interviews continue to be conducted with him. Having said this, I would like to be better versed on the issue before definitively commenting. 

22 minutes ago, Aloysius said:

IF that's what he's doing, that doesn't mean you should come out with the automatic assumption that the quotes from the media are accurate.  Because on the other hand he's also not coming out and correcting the correctors, part of that PR game is that he does indeed still allow his position to be shown to be the officially correct position.  So out of charity to the Pope, you should amplify the interpretation that gives him the benefit of the doubt until / unless he himself comes out to say otherwise.  The suspicion you have is not unreasonable, IMO, given how often this happens; an alternate hypothesis is that he's not doing it with conscious intent but he's negligent in who he grants interviews to and how he words things, unintentionally.  With either suspicion, it makes sense to amplify the fact that Pope Francis as pope has not actually contradicted these doctrines--so long as doubt remains, it seems like just a prideful thing to say you're so afraid of being 'fooled' that you wouldn't allow the interpretation that gives the benefit of the doubt.  Not saying to accept all backflips; but at least in this case there seems a quite clear aspect in which things were being touted out of context.

Agreed- I think charity from the laity towards the Pope is greatly needed, these days. 

[Peace]

5 hours ago, Anastasia said:

Well, after you accused me of lying

in this text

you have to explain where exactly I am lying in this text because quoting this text and then referring to another thread (in which you proclaimed that you are here for your entertainment) cannot work as an explanation of your accusation but works only to make an impression of me as one who lies.

[A lie - a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.]

I don't have to explain anything. You already know exactly why I wrote that.

But I will anyway, for my "entertainment".

1) Pope Francis has not made an impression that he approves "homosexual unions". In the very video that everyone is whining about he said "And that doesn’t mean to approve of homosexual acts, not at all.” He mas not made any statement anywhere all that suggests that he approves "homosexual unions."

2) Pope Francis did not create the scandal. That's complete BS. The scandal was created by a filmmaker who manipulated his words, and an insane media that ran with it before conducting a proper investigation.

But you know all of that already.

[Peace]

5 hours ago, Aloysius said:

@KnightofChrist,

it's not unreasonable to suspect Pope Francis might be playing a PR game, let something slip out or purposefully let it be misinterpreted and then let the officials correct it, while remaining silent himself.  If that's what he's doing, it's unfortunate.

IF that's what he's doing, that doesn't mean you should come out with the automatic assumption that the quotes from the media are accurate.  Because on the other hand he's also not coming out and correcting the correctors, part of that PR game is that he does indeed still allow his position to be shown to be the officially correct position.  So out of charity to the Pope, you should amplify the interpretation that gives him the benefit of the doubt until / unless he himself comes out to say otherwise.  The suspicion you have is not unreasonable, IMO, given how often this happens; an alternate hypothesis is that he's not doing it with conscious intent but he's negligent in who he grants interviews to and how he words things, unintentionally.  With either suspicion, it makes sense to amplify the fact that Pope Francis as pope has not actually contradicted these doctrines--so long as doubt remains, it seems like just a prideful thing to say you're so afraid of being 'fooled' that you wouldn't allow the interpretation that gives the benefit of the doubt.  Not saying to accept all backflips; but at least in this case there seems a quite clear aspect in which things were being touted out of context.

Basically, IF he's playing that kind of PR game, you only play into it by amplifying the interpretation that's going around.   IF he's just being negligent in his interviews, by amplifying the misinterpreted message you're not correcting the harm caused by that misinterpreted message but reinforcing that harm.

ultimately, though, I do agree with you that Pope Francis himself should directly correct the record in these matters.  it is unfortunate that he does not (particularly with the scalfari interviews)

I don't think it is him playing the PR game, I think he is refusing to play any games at all, or refusing to engage with people that he views as having bad faith who want to impose on him their view of what he should teach, or trap him into making some type of heretical statement, much like how the Jews were constantly trying to trap Jesus with their questions and accusations. I think he sees how our Lord was silent through much of his trial and passion, or refused to explain or directly engage with certain people of bad faith. I think he chooses to remain silent and put his faith in God to resolve certain situations. You can see those ideas expressed in his talk here:

 

[Lilllabettt]

4 hours ago, Peace said:

I don't think it is him playing the PR game, I think he is refusing to play any games at all, or refusing to engage with people that he views as having bad faith who want to impose on him their view of what he should teach, or trap him into making some type of heretical statement, much like how the Jews were constantly trying to trap Jesus with their questions and accusations. I think he sees how our Lord was silent through much of his trial and passion, or refused to explain or directly engage with certain people of bad faith. I think he chooses to remain silent and put his faith in God to resolve certain situations. You can see those ideas expressed in his talk here:

 

Your point would be good except you blew it with the video. I believe that was a homily he gave in the aftermath of the accusation from his former nuncio, Vigano, that he promoted cardinal mccarrick in spite of knowing he was a sex predator. Vigano seems a crank, but at least part of what he said was confirmed independently.

Anyway, the response from the Pope was to claim he would be silent like Jesus, and those who accuse are tools of the devil.

This was a turning point for me as far as my feelings with the Holy Father. After everything we've been thru with sex abuse, we deserved a swift, transparent, direct explanation complete with categorical denial, if appropriate.  If my own blood father acted this way after such an accusation against a child in our family, I would have slapped him across the face. It was 1000000% inappropriate and frankly abusive toward us, that he acted like it was wrong for us to expect an explanation, like we did not deserve to have this directly addressed. 

There is a website "wherepeteris" which has helped me understand and accept other things Pope Francis has said and done, providing a way to interpret them charitably and with orthodoxy.  However there is no  credible charitable explanation for how he acted in this incident. The best that could be said is that it showed he is severely lacking in a critical aspect of human formation.

This is the interview my Cardinal archbishop gave https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/cardinal-cupich-interview-questions-cardinal-mccarrick-allegations/174670/%3famp

An edited version was broadcast here in Chicago, and it was appalling.  The money quote was, we are not going to investigate the abuse of seminarians, because "The Pope has a bigger agenda. He's got to get on with other things, of talking about the environment and protecting migrants and carrying on the work of the church."  The following Sunday he made his pastors claim in their homilies that his words were taken out of context and twisted by editing. So NBC posted the raw footage, proving him a liar.

For the record I believe Vigano told PF about Mcarrick but PF homestly didn't believe him. If that is true, then it depends what the definition of "know" is, if you want to claim PF "knew" (ugh jesuitical.)  I had heard the rumors about Mcarrick 20 yrs ago but dismissed them as uber conservative garbage.  So, perhaps PF did the same? Fair enough. Then admit it. Instead we get :I'm silent like Jesus, accusers are like the devil: classically abusive!

The days of me implicitly trusting anyone, just because of the respect due their office, are over.  Now my Trust, and "benefit of the doubt" are earned. 

 

[Peace]

17 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

Your point would be good except you blew it with the video. I believe that was a homily he gave in the aftermath of the accusation from his former nuncio, Vigano, that he promoted cardinal mccarrick in spite of knowing he was a sex predator. Vigano seems a crank, but at least part of what he said was confirmed independently.

Anyway, the response from the Pope was to claim he would be silent like Jesus, and those who accuse are tools of the devil.

This was a turning point for me as far as my feelings with the Holy Father. After everything we've been thru with sex abuse, we deserved a swift, transparent, direct explanation complete with categorical denial, if appropriate.  If my own blood father acted this way after such an accusation against a child in our family, I would have slapped him across the face. It was 1000000% inappropriate and frankly abusive toward us, that he acted like it was wrong for us to expect an explanation, like we did not deserve to have this directly addressed. 

There is a website "wherepeteris" which has helped me understand and accept other things Pope Francis has said and done, providing a way to interpret them charitably and with orthodoxy.  However there is no  credible charitable explanation for how he acted in this incident. The best that could be said is that it showed he is severely lacking in a critical aspect of human formation.

This is the interview my Cardinal archbishop gave https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/cardinal-cupich-interview-questions-cardinal-mccarrick-allegations/174670/%3famp

An edited version was broadcast here in Chicago, and it was appalling.  The money quote was, we are not going to investigate the abuse of seminarians, because "The Pope has a bigger agenda. He's got to get on with other things, of talking about the environment and protecting migrants and carrying on the work of the church."  The following Sunday he made his pastors claim in their homilies that his words were taken out of context and twisted by editing. So NBC posted the raw footage, proving him a liar.

For the record I believe Vigano told PF about Mcarrick but PF homestly didn't believe him. If that is true, then it depends what the definition of "know" is, if you want to claim PF "knew" (ugh jesuitical.)  I had heard the rumors about Mcarrick 20 yrs ago but dismissed them as uber conservative garbage.  So, perhaps PF did the same? Fair enough. Then admit it. Instead we get :I'm silent like Jesus, accusers are like the devil: classically abusive!

The days of me implicitly trusting anyone, just because of the respect due their office, are over.  Now my Trust, and "benefit of the doubt" are earned. 

 

Huh? I thought PF said that he did not know about McCarrick. Was it ever proven that he did know about him?

I’ve been in the DMV since 2013, never heard those rumors. Most other people I knew were surprised too when that news came out, but I suppose some insiders knew of thise rumors. I mean, there is a whole lot of scandal in the Church. The pope is in Italy not here in the DMV.  I don’t know if the pope knew about that rumor, but if there is actual proof other than testimony from someone known to have it in for the pope, I could be convinced that he knew I think.

As for the other video with the seminarians or what have you, I’ll take your word on that for now. Unfamiliar with that specifically, but at a high level I agree that he failed big time when it came to handling of the sex abuse matters, like most of our clergy have, unfortunately.

[Lilllabettt]

1 minute ago, Peace said:

Huh? I thought PF said that he did not know about McCarrick. Was it ever proven that he did know about him?

I’ve been in the DMV since 2013, never heard those rumors. Most other people I knew were surprised too when that news came out, but I suppose some insiders knew of thise rumors. I mean, there is a whole lot of scandal in the Church. The pope is in Italy not here in the DMV.  I don’t know if the pope knew about that rumor, but if there is actual proof other than testimony from someone known to have it in for the pope, I could be convinced that he knew I think.

As for the other video with the seminarians or what have you, I’ll take your word on that for now. Unfamiliar with that specifically, but at a high level I agree that he failed big time when it came to handling of the sex abuse matters, like most of our clergy have, unfortunately.

No he neither confirmed or denied it. He refused to address it, told the journalists who asked that they themselves should investigate it and see if they believed it.  Then gave a series of homilies at his residence about being silent like Jesus and the devil is the accuser. (That wasn't the Gospel readings those days by the way.)

Part of Viganos claims were confirmed independently- that Mccarrick had been ordered to withdraw from public life by PB. https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=38552 which of course he returned to full steam ahead when PF was elected.  There's no doubt in my mind his rumored reputation was well known at the highest levels, for decades including when JP2 was pope.

The Vatican launched an investigation 2 years ago to determine how a creature with such widely known proclivities could have advanced so far. Archbishop Dolan said it would be made public in August. Didn't happen. 

[Peace]

11 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

No he neither confirmed or denied it. He refused to address it, told the journalists who asked that they themselves should investigate it and see if they believed it.  Then gave a series of homilies at his residence about being silent like Jesus and the devil is the accuser. (That wasn't the Gospel readings those days by the way.)

Part of Viganos claims were confirmed independently- that Mccarrick had been ordered to withdraw from public life by PB. https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=38552 which of course he returned to full steam ahead when PF was elected.  There's no doubt in my mind his rumored reputation was well known at the highest levels, for decades including when JP2 was pope.

The Vatican launched an investigation 2 years ago to determine how a creature with such widely known proclivities could have advanced so far. Archbishop Dolan said it would be made public in August. Didn't happen. 

Huh?

https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/pope-francis-denies-knowing-allegations-against-mccarrick

Am I missing something here?

From what I recall at first he came out and said something like “I am not going to respond to it, media do your investigation.” At least for me and my friends, we all interpreted that as the popes way of saying “This is BS”. You interpreted that differently?

As for the claim that McCarrick was on probation, sure. But that wasn’t the issue. The issue was whether PF knew that McCarick was on probation, and more specifically if he knew that he was in probation for sexual abuse allegations.

Now, he may have known, I’ll grant you that. I don’t think you are being unreasonable for reaching the conclusions that you have.

I don’t remember all of the details from that debate, but my impression that it wasn’t black or white, that there were things that supported the pope’s version of events.

I have some bias here though, I like Wuerl and it is hard for me to believe that he knew, being from Pittsburgh and all. It’s certainly possible that I’m not looking at that situation objectively.

[KnightofChrist]

1 hour ago, Lilllabettt said:

Your point would be good except you blew it with the video. I believe that was a homily he gave in the aftermath of the accusation from his former nuncio, Vigano, that he promoted cardinal mccarrick in spite of knowing he was a sex predator. Vigano seems a crank, but at least part of what he said was confirmed independently.

Anyway, the response from the Pope was to claim he would be silent like Jesus, and those who accuse are tools of the devil.

This was a turning point for me as far as my feelings with the Holy Father. After everything we've been thru with sex abuse, we deserved a swift, transparent, direct explanation complete with categorical denial, if appropriate.  If my own blood father acted this way after such an accusation against a child in our family, I would have slapped him across the face. It was 1000000% inappropriate and frankly abusive toward us, that he acted like it was wrong for us to expect an explanation, like we did not deserve to have this directly addressed. 

There is a website "wherepeteris" which has helped me understand and accept other things Pope Francis has said and done, providing a way to interpret them charitably and with orthodoxy.  However there is no  credible charitable explanation for how he acted in this incident. The best that could be said is that it showed he is severely lacking in a critical aspect of human formation.

This is the interview my Cardinal archbishop gave https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/cardinal-cupich-interview-questions-cardinal-mccarrick-allegations/174670/%3famp

An edited version was broadcast here in Chicago, and it was appalling.  The money quote was, we are not going to investigate the abuse of seminarians, because "The Pope has a bigger agenda. He's got to get on with other things, of talking about the environment and protecting migrants and carrying on the work of the church."  The following Sunday he made his pastors claim in their homilies that his words were taken out of context and twisted by editing. So NBC posted the raw footage, proving him a liar.

For the record I believe Vigano told PF about Mcarrick but PF homestly didn't believe him. If that is true, then it depends what the definition of "know" is, if you want to claim PF "knew" (ugh jesuitical.)  I had heard the rumors about Mcarrick 20 yrs ago but dismissed them as uber conservative garbage.  So, perhaps PF did the same? Fair enough. Then admit it. Instead we get :I'm silent like Jesus, accusers are like the devil: classically abusive!

The days of me implicitly trusting anyone, just because of the respect due their office, are over.  Now my Trust, and "benefit of the doubt" are earned. 

 

Mccarrick, Daniels, Barros, Karadima, Inzoli, etc. My biggest trust issues concerning Pope Francis pertain to his support of known sexual abusers (on the record and open secrets) and defenders of such men. The Pope in each case either called accusers liars, put sexual predators back in ministry, and/or otherwise defended. How can I give him the benefit of the doubt on the 'smaller issues'? Whether or not he denies the Godhood of Christ, indestructibility for the human soul, or Church teaching against same-sex unions?

[Lilllabettt]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

Huh?

https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/pope-francis-denies-knowing-allegations-against-mccarrick

Am I missing something here?

From what I recall at first he came out and said something like “I am not going to respond to it, media do your investigation.” At least for me and my friends, we all interpreted that as the popes way of saying “This is BS”. You interpreted that differently?

As for the claim that McCarrick was on probation, sure. But that wasn’t the issue. The issue was whether PF knew that McCarick was on probation, and more specifically if he knew that he was in probation for sexual abuse allegations.

Now, he may have known, I’ll grant you that. I don’t think you are being unreasonable for reaching the conclusions that you have.

I don’t remember all of the details from that debate, but my impression that it wasn’t black or white, that there were things that supported the pope’s version of events.

I have some bias here though, I like Wuerl and it is hard for me to believe that he knew, being from Pittsburgh and all. It’s certainly possible that I’m not looking at that situation objectively.

Ah, a year later.  1 year later after we have suffered enough, he deigns to say "I don't remember if (Vigano) spoke to me about this." Really??? He can't recall??? Reading this now I'm more convinced than ever they did speak about it... it is almost as bad as that bishop who claimed on the witness stand not to know that sex abuse is illegal ... it is embarrassing.  

I have to say also his assessment of how that turned out for him is also amazingly obtuse ... maybe that is the real issue, he is so disconnected from reality he doesn't know when something he has said or done is a real issue that needs addressing? I remember when Sean O'Malley rebuked him in public for something cruel he'd said about survivors. At that time rather than deign to clarify he went right to apologizing.  Maybe that is what he needs? In the article you linked he specifically likened himself to Jesus on Good Friday. sorry that grosses me out. 

To me fixing the situation is easy. Don't feel you need to explain yourself to the faithful ... then goodbye. Get rid of any like this. And any who screw up with sex or abuse or finances. One and you're done. Goodbye. Go support yourself in whatever way seems best to you.  I'd rather have the kid with downs syndrome who bags my groceries as my bishop or Pope than someone who thinks they are Jesus Christ and can't be questioned and don't have to explain.  

 

[Peace]

19 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

Ah, a year later.  1 year later after we have suffered enough, he deigns to say "I don't remember if (Vigano) spoke to me about this." Really??? He can't recall??? Reading this now I'm more convinced than ever they did speak about it... it is almost as bad as that bishop who claimed on the witness stand not to know that sex abuse is illegal ... it is embarrassing. 

It's pretty interesting how the perceptions differ among different people. Honestly, when he said "I ain't gonna respond" or whatever I understood him to be saying "These accusations are totally groundless." That is how I perceived it, but I guess that was not true for everyone.

Perhaps different people have different perspectives or expectations when it comes to the proper manner of responding, I guess. Like, if one day later he said "These accusations are totally groundless" or "I ain't gonna respond" I would have perceived it exactly the same way.

I mean, it ain't exactly the easiest thing in the world to affirmatively prove that you did not know something, now is it, unless we attach the Pope up to a lie detector test or something of that sort, I don't see how you respond with anything other than "That's not true." How do you prove that specific knowledge is not in your mind?

Quote

I have to sa also his assessment of how that turned out for him is also amazingly obtuse ... maybe that is the real issue, he is so disconnected from reality he doesn't know when something he has said or done is a real issue that needs addressing? I remember when Sean O'Malley rebuked him in public for something cruel he'd said about survivors. At that time rather than deign to clarify he went right to apologizing.  Maybe that is what he needs? In the article you linked he specifically likened himself to Jesus on Good Friday. sorry that grosses me out. 

 Yeah I wouldn't go that far to as to say that he was Jesus on Good Friday. That's a bit extreme I think. But yeah I will agree with your general point that he seems to be a bit "obtuse" or "disconnected from reality" sometimes.

FWIW I can't say that is really much different than how I perceive most popes though. Maybe it is a general problem with the modern papacy. In a certain sense it seems a bit unrealistic for any one man to be able to be responsible for such a large flock, and the all of the scandals and other problems within the Church.

Quote

To me fixing the situation is easy. Don't feel you need to explain yourself to the faithful ... then goodbye. Get rid of any like this. And any who screw up with sex or abuse or finances. One and you're done. Goodbye. Go support yourself in whatever way seems best to you.  I'd rather have the kid with downs syndrome who bags my groceries as my bishop or Pope than someone who thinks they are Jesus Christ and can't be questioned and don't have to explain. 

Well if perfection in this regard is your standard, I doubt that you will ever have a pope. I would guess that if we really had proper evidence on all of them and could subject all of them to scrutiny, probably you are gonna find dirt, or at least big mistakes, on all of them, which in understandable given that Peter himself failed in manifesting proper conduct towards the flock that he served.

As for his motivations in not explaining certain things, it seems that you may be ascribing certain motivations to him, that may not be true. Because look, as I wrote above, our Lord himself did not always give nice, neat explanations of everything to his flock.

Edited October 25, 2020 by Peace

[Peace]

I guess I can say this - yeah, some of the criticisms against Francis appear to be valid. I think we can and should demand better, in certain areas.

At the same time, though, I feel like the alternative in a lot of cases is gonna be a pope that you basically never hear from outside of formal written teachings, or who is inaccessible to the media. I don't know if that is a great thing for the Church, either.

Perhaps there is kind of a good balance between the two, interacting with the media, the modern culture, while still being careful of your words and edifying at the same time. Maybe the next pope will be able to do a better job of it.

[HumilityAndPatience]

4 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

Vigano, that he promoted cardinal mccarrick in spite of knowing he was a sex predator.

This indictment is tenuous at best. How can you assume PF knew about Mccarrick. Vigano's track record of sensational (often baseless) claims is shockingly bad...

2 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

My biggest trust issues concerning Pope Francis pertain to his support of known sexual abusers (on the record and open secrets) and defenders of such men.

Some of the "known" (burden on you to prove PF knew) abusers were on the watches of at least two of the previous Pontiffs. How much blame do you attribute to them, out of interest?

[KnightofChrist]

The scandal exploded last month when Francis’ trip to South America was marred by protests over his vigorous defense of Bishop Juan Barros, who is accused by victims of witnessing and ignoring the abuse by the Rev. Fernando Karadima. During the trip, Francis callously dismissed accusations against Barros as “slander,” seemingly unaware that victims had placed Barros at the scene of Karadima’s crimes.

On the plane home, confronted by an AP reporter, the pope said: “You, in all good will, tell me that there are victims, but I haven’t seen any, because they haven’t come forward.”

But members of the pope’s Commission for the Protection of Minors say that in April 2015, they sent a delegation to Rome specifically to hand-deliver a letter to the pope about Barros. The letter from Juan Carlos Cruz detailed the abuse, kissing and fondling he says he suffered at Karadima’s hands, which he said Barros and others saw but did nothing to stop.

Four members of the commission met with Francis’ top abuse adviser, Cardinal Sean O’Malley, explained their concerns about Francis’ recent appointment of Barros as a bishop in southern Chile, and gave him the letter to deliver to Francis.

“When we gave him (O’Malley) the letter for the pope, he assured us he would give it to the pope and speak of the concerns,” then-commission member Marie Collins told the AP. “And at a later date, he assured us that that had been done.”

Cruz, who now lives and works in Philadelphia, heard the same later that year.

“Cardinal O’Malley called me after the pope’s visit here in Philadelphia and he told me, among other things, that he had given the letter to the pope — in his hands,” he said in an interview at his home Sunday.

Continued...

 

https://apnews.com/article/07e48f9e01c54ec496397f68bea5d30a

[HumilityAndPatience]

16 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

“Cardinal O’Malley called me after the pope’s visit here in Philadelphia and he told me, among other things, that he had given the letter to the pope — in his hands,”

Thanks for the reply but Cardinal O'Malley is not known as the most reliable of handlers is he not?

In any case, I will flag my message below in case you missed. Would be interest in your take on that.

Some of the "known" (burden on you to prove PF knew) abusers were on the watches of at least two of the previous Pontiffs. How much blame do you attribute to them, out of interest?