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

[KnightofChrist]

6 minutes ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

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?

 

Francis could not have accused people of slander if he didn't have some knowledge. Nor would he has zero knowledge of when...

"The Barros affair first caused shockwaves in January 2015 when Francis appointed him bishop of Osorno, Chile, over the objections of the leadership of Chile’s bishops’ conference and many local priests and laity. They accepted as credible the testimony against Karadima, a prominent Chilean cleric who was sanctioned by the Vatican in 2011 for abusing minors."

* have

[Anastasia]

12 hours ago, Peace said:

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

No, I do not know because I do not have a direct instant access to your mind and thus cannot know why you wrote it. And even if you believed I had, since you accused me of lies publicly you have to provide the evidence for your accusation also publicly otherwise you will look like someone who thinks he has no responsibility for calling another person a lair. That would sufficiently discredit you arguments here. It appears that you understand this because you provided you reasons for doing that.

And here they are.

12 hours ago, Peace said:

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."

The material which became available to the public make an impression that the Pope endorses homosexual unions otherwise there would be no wide-spread conviction in much of the world and of the Churches that he did. There would be no excitement and statements coming from the pro-LGBTQ groups including in Vatican like Fr James Martin, SJ (an immediate circle of the Pope) who plainly stated that Fr Francis supports homosexual unions and that it is a step in a right direction. There would be no confusion and even despair among the Catholic laity and quite desperate actions like picketing Vatican demanding a clarification. There would be also no statements of Archbishops and  Cardinals demanding the Pope to clarify himself and also "to retract his statement" and so on.  One can say that all this is done not by the Pope but by his interpreters but this has been precisely my point and also of those Archbishops and Cardinals, that the Pope habitually creates "the blur", creating confusion and letting others to do "the dirty job" of "explaining" him.

To the above I added my own observation of the similarity of what is going on right now with the dynamics of a narcissistic family, with its head and "flying monkeys" who are trying to form an impeccable image of a parent via "explaining" and also via discrediting those who demand clarity - calling them "something wrong with you", "wining", "lairs" and so on.

12 hours ago, Peace said:

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.

If a filmmaker "manipulated" his words the Pope surely knew that as soon as the material was released. Considering the scale of the disorder that the material created in the world, what harm it has done to the Church and, most importantly, seeing the despair of the lay Roman Catholics, the Pope had to stop the scandal. If he does not it means he is at the very least contributing to that scandal, perpetuating it while he only he has a power to stop it. 

It hard to see how those my arguments could be qualified as "lying" by you, especially since, as you put it,

12 hours ago, Peace said:

you know all of that already.

 

[Aloysius]

Francis's claim to be "silent like Jesus" could easily be part of the PR game it's reasonable to suspect he's doing.  Jesus told us to let our yes's mean yes and our no's mean no.  Him being silent before his accusers was to show us how to humbly submit to persecution, it is NOT meant to be something we can use as an excuse to avoid answering an accusation (false or true) that people have a right to get an explanation from us for.

The alternative is not for a pope to never speak except formally.  The alternative is that it should be the pope himself who corrects the record if/when there is a scandal out there.  He speaks openly and on the cuff all the time, and that's fine, maybe he should have a bit more prudence but I'm not even arguing that necessarily, I'm saying he should forcefully correct it when there are misinterpretations circling (like the question of whether he believes in hell, for instance).  If/when he doesn't, it's reasonable to suspect it to be a PR game; or in the present day language, a dog whistle--making sure enough people out there get the message (hell's not real, approve of gay marriage, approve of divorce) without having to directly confront and contradict doctrine officially.  Now I'm not saying it IS, but IF it is a dog whistle/PR game, it only plays into that game to amplify the wrongly interpreted message; so if there are people out there with plausible corrections towards it and Pope Francis doesn't correct the correctors, then I think it's reasonable to amplify the corrected version.

When it came to the McCarrick accusations, him saying he was being silent like Jesus is just not acceptable.  He had a responsibility to the faithful to be candid about the issue.  You can interpret his silence as a denial, but you know what's a real denial?  A denial.  Refusing to confirm or deny, then finally later answering with a wishy washy "do not recall", that's indicative of a problem, at the very least a problem of communication.  There are some instances when you shouldn't respond--a proverbial "when did you stop beating your wife" comes to mind--but I just can't see how this is one of those.  It's not some random crank, it's an archbishop and former papal nuncio who would have knowledge of the matter, whatever else he's said that has whatever other credibility, we're talking of someone who was involved in those matters who made a reasonable accusation and there's some independent verification of some of the claims; it's not a Sanhedrin who has drummed up charges to undermine the messiah or a Roman governor who's preparing to wash his hands of it, it's a scandal that has caused deep hurt among the faithful that involves actual real guilty acts of a top level cardinal that was seen as an ecclesiastical ally of this pope--he certainly had the obligation to respond and to let his yes's mean yes and his no's mean no.

we all have a tendency to give the benefit of the doubt to public figures that we like and assume the worst of public figures that we don't like (and btw there's nothing inherently wrong with not liking any pope as a public figure as long as you respect his office and promote the unity that office should bring; modern celebrity-pope-politics aren't inherent to the throne of Peter); that's a tendency we all have to work against--when it's a public figure you like, do your best to be suspicious, when it's one you dislike, do your best to see what the benefit of the doubt would look like.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Anastasia said:

No, I do not know because I do not have a direct instant access to your mind and thus cannot know why you wrote it.

You do not have direct instant access to my mind? Well that can be arranged, for a fee. A very handsome fee.

1 hour ago, Anastasia said:

And even if you believed I had, since you accused me of lies publicly you have to provide the evidence for your accusation also publicly otherwise you will look like someone who thinks he has no responsibility for calling another person a lair.

Friend, this is the internet. My reputation here is already zero. I am not overly concerned with maintaining it.

But fine. I will admit that I was wrong when I called you a liar. You honestly appear to actually believe what you wrote, and that what you wrote has validity. I apologize.

Nevertheless, I still say that what you wrote is utter trash, albeit honestly believed utter trash.

1 hour ago, Anastasia said:

That would sufficiently discredit you arguments here. It appears that you understand this because you provided you reasons for doing that.

And here they are.

I am starting to think that you are the most serious person on the web.

1 hour ago, Anastasia said:

The material which became available to the public make an impression that the Pope endorses homosexual unions otherwise there would be no wide-spread conviction in much of the world and of the Churches that he did. There would be no excitement and statements coming from the pro-LGBTQ groups including in Vatican like Fr James Martin, SJ (an immediate circle of the Pope) who plainly stated that Fr Francis supports homosexual unions and that it is a step in a right direction. There would be no confusion and even despair among the Catholic laity and quite desperate actions like picketing Vatican demanding a clarification. There would be also no statements of Archbishops and  Cardinals demanding the Pope to clarify himself and also "to retract his statement" and so on.  One can say that all this is done not by the Pope but by his interpreters but this has been precisely my point and also of those Archbishops and Cardinals, that the Pope habitually creates "the blur", creating confusion and letting others to do "the dirty job" of "explaining" him.

In this particular instance, he did not create any blur. He said ""And that doesn’t mean to approve of homosexual acts, not at all.” There is nothing unclear about that, in the least.

As for him habitually creating a blur, I think that is a bunch of BS too. People pour over thousands and thousands of words that the man speaks or writes, finds one footnote or 10 seconds of speech in an hour long interview, that can be ambiguous, creates a huge mountain of croutons out of it, feeds this croutons to the media, and then blames the Pope for the result of their own creation. And what, you never think that people have been defamed by the media at large? You never think that people jump to unfair conclusions without doing due diligence? But it's all the Pope's fault for not cleaning up this mountain of croutons to your satisfaction. Whatever.

And as for the despair, let's be real here, the whole thing is going to blow over in two weeks like it always does. Nobody is going out and becoming a homosexual or enacting a new law because of a 20 second clip in a documentary. The pro-gay dudes were knocking boots way before the 20 second clip in the video, and were going to continue right along with that regardless of whether the Pope said "Gay people go forth and knock boots I shall watch" or "Two men knocking boots is disgusting, and offense against God, and ya'll have to stop this abomination immediately."

1 hour ago, Anastasia said:

To the above I added my own observation of the similarity of what is going on right now with the dynamics of a narcissistic family, with its head and "flying monkeys" who are trying to form an impeccable image of a parent via "explaining" and also via discrediting those who demand clarity - calling them "something wrong with you", "wining", "lairs" and so on.

If a filmmaker "manipulated" his words the Pope surely knew that as soon as the material was released. Considering the scale of the disorder that the material created in the world, what harm it has done to the Church and, most importantly, seeing the despair of the lay Roman Catholics, the Pope had to stop the scandal. If he does not it means he is at the very least contributing to that scandal, perpetuating it while he only he has a power to stop it. 

It hard to see how those my arguments could be qualified as "lying" by you, especially since, as you put it,

I don't even know what a flying monkey is. It sounds like something from The Wiz. That analogy is way over my head but some other folks here seem to have understood it.

Look, the Pope has his reasons for responding, or not responding, or responding late. Would I have handled those situations differently? Probably. But how to handle those matters are within his own prudential judgment. Maybe he wants to investigate the matter internally before speaking. Maybe he wants to figure out the best words, or the best pastoral approach, before taking action. Maybe he wants to consult with his communications team before issuing a response. Maybe he thinks that directly responding to it, instead of ignoring it, will only give more people more fodder to fan the flames even more. The bottom line here is that he has the authority to make those decisions, and you and I don't. You can question his judgment, I can call your questioning of his judgment utter trash, but none of this edifies the Church in any way now does it? It is a just a bunch of people on the internet whining, complaining, and "entertaining" ourselves.

And let's keep it real here. Some of ya'll are simply haters. If the Pope responds in 1 year ya'll will bicker and complain that he should have responded in 1 month. If he responds in 1 month, ya'll will bicker and complain that he should have responded in 1 week. If he responds in 1 week, ya'll will bicker and complain that he should have responded within 24 hours. If he responds within 24 hours, ya'll will bicker and complain that he should have responded within 2 hours. If he responds within 2 hours and says XYZ, ya'll will bicker and complain that he should have said ABC. If he says ABC, ya'll will bicker and complain that he should have said DEF. And on, and on, and on, because that is precisely what haters do. They can only see fault and cannot see good. Could that be a reason why PF thinks that not responding to it all in the first place is a better option?

1 hour ago, Aloysius said:

Francis's claim to be "silent like Jesus" could easily be part of the PR game it's reasonable to suspect he's doing.  Jesus told us to let our yes's mean yes and our no's mean no.  Him being silent before his accusers was to show us how to humbly submit to persecution, it is NOT meant to be something we can use as an excuse to avoid answering an accusation (false or true) that people have a right to get an explanation from us for.

Yeah I think that is open for debate. During his passion, I'd probably agree with you. But that not the only instance where our Lord refused to answer questions directly, or to clear up situations where there was confusion, or where people wanted explanation.

1 hour ago, Aloysius said:

The alternative is not for a pope to never speak except formally.  The alternative is that it should be the pope himself who corrects the record if/when there is a scandal out there.  He speaks openly and on the cuff all the time, and that's fine, maybe he should have a bit more prudence but I'm not even arguing that necessarily, I'm saying he should forcefully correct it when there are misinterpretations circling (like the question of whether he believes in hell, for instance).  If/when he doesn't, it's reasonable to suspect it to be a PR game; or in the present day language, a dog whistle--making sure enough people out there get the message (hell's not real, approve of gay marriage, approve of divorce) without having to directly confront and contradict doctrine officially.  Now I'm not saying it IS, but IF it is a dog whistle/PR game, it only plays into that game to amplify the wrongly interpreted message; so if there are people out there with plausible corrections towards it and Pope Francis doesn't correct the correctors, then I think it's reasonable to amplify the corrected version.

When it came to the McCarrick accusations, him saying he was being silent like Jesus is just not acceptable.  He had a responsibility to the faithful to be candid about the issue.  You can interpret his silence as a denial, but you know what's a real denial?  A denial.  Refusing to confirm or deny, then finally later answering with a wishy washy "do not recall", that's indicative of a problem, at the very least a problem of communication.  There are some instances when you shouldn't respond--a proverbial "when did you stop beating your wife" comes to mind--but I just can't see how this is one of those.  It's not some random crank, it's an archbishop and former papal nuncio who would have knowledge of the matter, whatever else he's said that has whatever other credibility, we're talking of someone who was involved in those matters who made a reasonable accusation and there's some independent verification of some of the claims; it's not a Sanhedrin who has drummed up charges to undermine the messiah or a Roman governor who's preparing to wash his hands of it, it's a scandal that has caused deep hurt among the faithful that involves actual real guilty acts of a top level cardinal that was seen as an ecclesiastical ally of this pope--he certainly had the obligation to respond and to let his yes's mean yes and his no's mean no.

we all have a tendency to give the benefit of the doubt to public figures that we like and assume the worst of public figures that we don't like (and btw there's nothing inherently wrong with not liking any pope as a public figure as long as you respect his office and promote the unity that office should bring; modern celebrity-pope-politics aren't inherent to the throne of Peter); that's a tendency we all have to work against--when it's a public figure you like, do your best to be suspicious, when it's one you dislike, do your best to see what the benefit of the doubt would look like.

See my response to @Anastasia above. Yeah, these are prudential judgments. I probably would handle them differently myself. But I don't get where ya'll get the nerve to sit there and say how the pope should do his job, honestly. When did ya'll become the judge of Peter?

As for respecting his office, how is any of this consistent with that at all? Look, if we are talking about Bishops or other ordained clergy criticizing the pope and telling him how he should do his job, and they were doing it behind doors prudentially so as not to cause scandal or further division, that would be one thing. But there certainly ain't no warrant withing Catholic teaching at all for a bunch of lay Catholics to be laying this amount of criticism on the pope in a public forum, without even having had firsthand knowledge of the facts, or having approached our ordained clergy with our concerns about it, and having gone up the proper chain of command. If we are going to get all over the pope about now not having followed procedure in a proper way, we are all 10 times more guilty of not acting properly by our rash criticisms right here in this forum.

[Lilllabettt]

3 hours ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

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...

When someone says "I don't recall if X told me about the lurid sexual predation of a famous person I'm collaborating closely with" (see  Peace's link) that's what we call a 'clue.'  What, do nuncios tell him this stuff about Cardinals all the time? So they all blur together or something?

When PF brought McCarrick out of his forced withdrawal from private life, restored him to his globetrotting position, no one mentioned why hed been forced to withdraw in the 1st place? PF didn't think to ask? Because we know for sure that news of McCarricks sins had reached the highest echelons of the Vatican during PB's reign. All sorts of high and midlevel career people were involved with informing PBs decision to send McCarrick away. The institution doesn't forget that ish between pontificates. 

 It's incredible.

Btw, Innocent until proven guilty is a legal standard --  not a moral one. Catholic  Leaders have the moral responsibility to be 100% transparent and forthcoming on sex abuse and what they know or knew and when. The moral burden is rightly on them to do everything possible to reassure the faithful. Punting to journalists isn't an option. 

That Vigano is a crank doesn't discredit his accusations in the least. Believe the bad guys when they start turning on each other ... not that I think PF is a bad guy. I think he just smells of elderberries at his job. He's the Harriet Miers of the papacy, a B team guy in a position that, due to the pressure of modern times, demands both genius and heroic sanctity.  Or maybe he's the Trump of the papacy - a guy with a nontraditional resume who was elected with a mandate to drain "the swamp," throws bombs and causes outrage pretty regularly, but is basically out of his depth.

[Aloysius]

14 minutes ago, Peace said:

And let's keep it real here. Some of ya'll are simply haters. If the Pope responds in 1 year ya'll will bicker and complain that he should have responded in 1 month. If he responds in 1 month, ya'll will bicker and complain that he should have responded in 1 week. If he responds in 1 week, ya'll will bicker and complain that he should have responded within 24 hours. If he responds within 24 hours, ya'll will bicker and complain that he should have responded within 2 hours. If he responds within 2 hours and says XYZ, ya'll will bicker and complain that he should have said ABC. If he says ABC, ya'll will bicker and complain that he should have said DEF. And on, and on, and on, because that is precisely what haters do. They can only see fault and cannot see good. Could that be a reason why PF thinks that not responding to it all in the first place is a better option?

this is part of what I say about people tending to give benefit of the doubt to public figures they like, and worst case scenario suspicion to those they dislike, so ALL of us need to recognize which side of that equation we line up on and do serious work to work out either what the benefit of the doubt would look like or what suspicion would look like.

as far as your point about timelines of Francis's response, I think you're wrong there.  people at the time were clamoring for Francis to respond and were hurt by his silence.  if he responded during the time it was a major weight on their mind, most wouldn't be complaining if it was a week or a month or whatever; when it comes to this story people weren't taking it as some kind of ideological warfare, they were looking for some response and reassurance from their shepherd; his silence for a year was simply unacceptable IMO.  even if his statement at the time had been something like "we're doing an investigation into the matter to figure out who knew what and why it didn't result in mccarrick being stopped earlier; I don't recall details of any meeting but I'm taking it seriously and if there's any way I dropped the ball I want to find out about that so it doesn't happen again" that would've been something.  let's be clear: I'm being silent like Jesus was a slap in the face to the faithful who were anxious and hurting over the issue; I'm sure he didn't intend it that way, but it definitely was.  No Catholic, not even the pope, should ever use "being silent like Jesus" in the face of an accusation to which they have the moral obligation to respond.  imagine someone doing that in a court of law, or for that matter in a canonical tribunal.  Christ wasn't silent before Pilate to give us an excuse not to respond to accusations that are made about us.  He did it to show us a model of being persecuted for the love of Christ. 

I don't mean to use that to throw mud on Pope Francis here, not at all, as I have said I think we should amplify the best possible interpretations when things get spread in the media that are ambiguous or blurry.  but I'm sorry I do draw the line at any Catholic, even the Pope himself, using Jesus' silence as an excuse not to answer an accusation UNLESS they are in a scenario when they are being PERSECUTED FOR being a follower of Christ by an authority that is bent on such persecution.

16 minutes ago, Peace said:

But I don't get where ya'll get the nerve to sit there and say how the pope should do his job, honestly. When did ya'll become the judge of Peter?

As for respecting his office, how is any of this consistent with that at all?

Honestly, I think this comes into the distinction between respecting the Pope's office and the modern celebrity-pope-culture; respecting his office does not mean never criticizing the man holding the office.  we uphold him insofar as his office unites the faithful; it does us no good at all the defend every personal action or personal statement of the man holding it when the faithful themselves can see before their eyes there are scandals not being addressed.  all that would do is drive more people away.  that kind of keeping things silent and behind closed doors for the good of the church just does not hold any water for most of the faithful since it was so abused and misused to cover up abuse.  sunlight should not be feared here.  the faithful have every right to demand candor from the bishops and the papacy itself; they have no mechanism for enforcing such candor, as the Church is not a democracy, but as long as we are assenting to the ordinary magisterium of the pope as he confirms us / arbitrates issues on faith and morals, praying for him, and upholding unity with him as essential for all Catholics, I don't see an issue with also criticizing his actions fairly and openly.  THAT BEING SAID, you do have a point about some people "just being haters", as I said at the beginning here, and to whatever extent anyone is just being a hater, that would be a sin against the unity of the Petrine office (and we all should examine our conscience in that regard)

[Peace]

12 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

When someone says "I don't recall if X told me about the lurid sexual predation of a famous person I'm collaborating closely with" (see  Peace's link) that's what we call a 'clue.'  What, do nuncios tell him this stuff about Cardinals all the time? So they all blur together or something?

When PF brought McCarrick out of his forced withdrawal from private life, restored him to his globetrotting position, no one mentioned why hed been forced to withdraw in the 1st place? PF didn't think to ask? Because we know for sure that news of McCarricks sins had reached the highest echelons of the Vatican during PB's reign. All sorts of high and midlevel career people were involved with informing PBs decision to send McCarrick away. The institution doesn't forget that ish between pontificates. 

 It's incredible.

Btw, Innocent until proven guilty is a legal standard --  not a moral one. Catholic  Leaders have the moral responsibility to be 100% transparent and forthcoming on sex abuse and what they know or knew and when. The moral burden is rightly on them to do everything possible to reassure the faithful. Punting to journalists isn't an option. 

That Vigano is a crank doesn't discredit his accusations in the least. Believe the bad guys when they start turning on each other ... not that I think PF is a bad guy. I think he just smells of elderberries at his job. He's the Harriet Miers of the papacy, a B team guy in a position that, due to the pressure of modern times, demands both genius and heroic sanctity.  Or maybe he's the Trump of the papacy - a guy with a nontraditional resume who was elected with a mandate to drain "the swamp," throws bombs and causes outrage pretty regularly, but is basically out of his depth.

So that's assume for the sake of argument that Pope Francis did not know. How does he prove that to you, since we are applying guilty until proven innocent? Would you like him to take a lie-detector test to prove that such knowledge was not within his mind?

4 minutes ago, Aloysius said:

this is part of what I say about people tending to give benefit of the doubt to public figures they like, and worst case scenario suspicion to those they dislike, so ALL of us need to recognize which side of that equation we line up on and do serious work to work out either what the benefit of the doubt would look like or what suspicion would look like.

as far as your point about timelines of Francis's response, I think you're wrong there.  people at the time were clamoring for Francis to respond and were hurt by his silence.  if he responded during the time it was a major weight on their mind, most wouldn't be complaining if it was a week or a month or whatever; when it comes to this story people weren't taking it as some kind of ideological warfare, they were looking for some response and reassurance from their shepherd; his silence for a year was simply unacceptable IMO.  even if his statement at the time had been something like "we're doing an investigation into the matter to figure out who knew what and why it didn't result in mccarrick being stopped earlier; I don't recall details of any meeting but I'm taking it seriously and if there's any way I dropped the ball I want to find out about that so it doesn't happen again" that would've been something.  let's be clear: I'm being silent like Jesus was a slap in the face to the faithful who were anxious and hurting over the issue; I'm sure he didn't intend it that way, but it definitely was.  No Catholic, not even the pope, should ever use "being silent like Jesus" in the face of an accusation to which they have the moral obligation to respond.  imagine someone doing that in a court of law, or for that matter in a canonical tribunal.  Christ wasn't silent before Pilate to give us an excuse not to respond to accusations that are made about us.  He did it to show us a model of being persecuted for the love of Christ. 

I don't mean to use that to throw mud on Pope Francis here, not at all, as I have said I think we should amplify the best possible interpretations when things get spread in the media that are ambiguous or blurry.  but I'm sorry I do draw the line at any Catholic, even the Pope himself, using Jesus' silence as an excuse not to answer an accusation UNLESS they are in a scenario when they are being PERSECUTED FOR being a follower of Christ by an authority that is bent on such persecution.

Honestly, I think this comes into the distinction between respecting the Pope's office and the modern celebrity-pope-culture; respecting his office does not mean never criticizing the man holding the office.  we uphold him insofar as his office unites the faithful; it does us no good at all the defend every personal action or personal statement of the man holding it when the faithful themselves can see before their eyes there are scandals not being addressed.  all that would do is drive more people away.  that kind of keeping things silent and behind closed doors for the good of the church just does not hold any water for most of the faithful since it was so abused and misused to cover up abuse.  sunlight should not be feared here.  the faithful have every right to demand candor from the bishops and the papacy itself; they have no mechanism for enforcing such candor, as the Church is not a democracy, but as long as we are assenting to the ordinary magisterium of the pope as he confirms us / arbitrates issues on faith and morals, praying for him, and upholding unity with him as essential for all Catholics, I don't see an issue with also criticizing his actions fairly and openly.  THAT BEING SAID, you do have a point about some people "just being haters", as I said at the beginning here, and to whatever extent anyone is just being a hater, that would be a sin against the unity of the Petrine office (and we all should examine our conscience in that regard)

We'll I'll get back to this later, but he was being persecuted (if ultimately the accusations against him are untrue). Someone accused him of having knowledge of child sex abuser, and essentially covering up for the abuser and enabling the abuser by putting him back into active service. If someone accused you of enabling a sex offender and it was not true what would you call it, a "slight misunderstanding"? The "silence" speech, from what I take it, was a response to those specific accusations against him.

And besides he did indicate that the allegations against him were untrue, for anyone who is not obtuse and can interpret his response to it.

What I want to know is, what specifically did you want him to say when someone calls him an enabler of a sex offender? What, he literally has to state "That is completely untrue" as if that statement by itself is going to shed any light on the situation? I don't get that perspective at all, but that's just me.

Edited October 26, 2020 by Peace

[Aloysius]

persecuted for his love of Christ.  not just persecuted in the general sense of unjustly or falsely accused.  persecuted for the love of Christ is the ONLY time you should get to use the "I'm being silent like Jesus" line, IMO; you can't use it when someone who would have knowledge of events makes an accusation--you must directly respond to those.

I think you can also be silent to an accusation if it's something like "when did you stop beating your wife"; but you shouldn't invoke Jesus there, and that should only be done in a case where the answer creates the story (ie no one ever thought you had beat your wife before and therefore by answering it you create the headline of denying beating your wife; only works as a reason to be silent if there's not already a story out there).  the story was already out there, Francis' answer would not have caused the story.

within my post above I suggested a form that the response could've taken that would've been more acceptable.  (not verbatim, but something along these lines)

41 minutes ago, Aloysius said:

"we're doing an investigation into the matter to figure out who knew what and why it didn't result in mccarrick being stopped earlier; I don't recall details of any meeting but I'm taking it seriously and if there's any way I dropped the ball I want to find out about that so it doesn't happen again"

but yes, he did have an obligation to say if it was not true that it was not true.  I get wanting to defend him, but would you grant anyone else in such a situation that same benefit of the doubt when they stayed silent and refused to answer?  as an exercise take out the papacy from the equation and place in any other public figure in an office, make it someone you dislike like trump, mitch mcconnel, Justin Bieber, or something, and now imagine a subordinate of theirs who was widely known as a political ally of theirs had been committing abuse for a very long time.  now imagine someone whose work had put them in a position to know what (trump/mcconnel/Bieber/whoever you're thinking of) had known, made the accusation that he personally made them aware of it.  would you accept Trump/McConnell/whoever's silence in that matter?  how would you expect that person to respond, what ways that they responded would be acceptable to you?

Francis should have made a clear statement.  But what's worse than his evasion to me is the way he justified it with the idea of being silent like Jesus--which only fits if you're saying someone is persecuting you for the love of Christ.  but whether Vigano was just a crank saying falsehoods or not, he was someone with knowledge and after he had said it it was no longer him who was accusing, but the faithful who were demanding answers about abuse allegations and how much the Pope knew.  he definitely should have been direct with the faithful and I do find it inexcusable that he was evasive.  I get that you, giving him the benefit of the doubt, want to interpret his evasiveness as a denial; but again, a denial is a denial, refusing to answer the question and telling reporters to decide for themselves is simply not a denial and I doubt you'd give our fictional alternative person that you disliked the benefit of the doubt had he or she evaded the same way.

[Peace]

8 hours ago, Aloysius said:

persecuted for his love of Christ.  not just persecuted in the general sense of unjustly or falsely accused.  persecuted for the love of Christ is the ONLY time you should get to use the "I'm being silent like Jesus" line, IMO; you can't use it when someone who would have knowledge of events makes an accusation--you must directly respond to those.

Sure I can accept that is how you view it. I think it is too narrow, but that's just my opinion.

Here is another perspective from some Baptist website. It is totally unrelated to the current controversy, but you can see that other Christians have recognized the same concept that Francis alludes to (not responding to people who are just set out for destruction):

https://www.riverviewbaptist.net/pastor-levis-blog/2016/10/14/when-jesus-didnt-answer-questions-and-when-we-shouldnt-either

Yet there were times when Christ refused to answer questions posed to him. In Luke 20:1-4 the chief priests and teachers approach Jesus to ask him, “Tell us by what authority you are doing these things…Who gave you this authority?”

Note Jesus could have answered this question, “I am God in the Flesh! The Father has sent me! I am his Son!”  It would appear on the surface that all the chief priests wanted was the truth, all they wanted to know was more about Jesus. Who of us if asked this question about Jesus would hesitate to answer clearly?

But Jesus knew these people were not seeking truth, they were not seeking to believe—they were out for blood. This question was a trap, the leaders were seeking for Jesus to declare himself either God, which would be blasphemy, or the Christ, which would make him a threat to Rome. They wanted to legitimize their opposition to Jesus while at the same time discrediting him. 

So Jesus responded by asking them a question about John’s baptism—did it come from heaven or from man? Jesus pressed them to declare what their hidden allegiances are. Instead of playing along, Jesus turns the table on them. 

When the religious leaders refused to answer, Jesus in turn refuses to answer their initial question. Was Jesus being dishonest? Or course not. He was unwilling to play their twisted game.  Jesus conducts himself in the same way elsewhere (Matt. 15.1-3). The question for us is, “What should we take from Jesus’ refusal to answer loaded questions?” 

 

Quote

I think you can also be silent to an accusation if it's something like "when did you stop beating your wife"; but you shouldn't invoke Jesus there, and that should only be done in a case where the answer creates the story (ie no one ever thought you had beat your wife before and therefore by answering it you create the headline of denying beating your wife; only works as a reason to be silent if there's not already a story out there).  the story was already out there, Francis' answer would not have caused the story.

That's fair. But I think that's a prudential judgment, when, if and how to respond.

Quote

within my post above I suggested a form that the response could've taken that would've been more acceptable.  (not verbatim, but something along these lines)

I actually agree with you that it would have been better for him to respond in a different way. I think your proposed language would have been a good response.

But I won't go so far as to shake down the pope, and say that is the only valid or prudential way that he should have responded. I think that silence can be an appropriate response (I think you do too). Whether it was in this case or not, that's a matter within the pope's prudence. It's not like the pope came out and said "I don't give a darn about any sexual abuse allegations or any of these kids who were sexually abused, screw them!" His response was more along the lines of "I am not even going to dignify that with a response, and the truth will be shown once the media conduct their inquiry." I think that anyone with half a brain should know tha means that he is saying "These charges are groundless" but I guess some folks interpreted it differently. Anyone can look back in time and retroactively propose a better plan after having seen how things played out.

Quote

but yes, he did have an obligation to say if it was not true that it was not true.  I get wanting to defend him, but would you grant anyone else in such a situation that same benefit of the doubt when they stayed silent and refused to answer?  as an exercise take out the papacy from the equation and place in any other public figure in an office, make it someone you dislike like trump, mitch mcconnel, Justin Bieber, or something, and now imagine a subordinate of theirs who was widely known as a political ally of theirs had been committing abuse for a very long time.  now imagine someone whose work had put them in a position to know what (trump/mcconnel/Bieber/whoever you're thinking of) had known, made the accusation that he personally made them aware of it.  would you accept Trump/McConnell/whoever's silence in that matter?  how would you expect that person to respond, what ways that they responded would be acceptable to you?

Yeah, again, honestly I think that anyone with half a brain should have interpreted his response as "That's not true." That is exactly how I interpreted it, but it is true that I am much smarter than the rest of ya'll j/k.

As for the hypo, politicians response with stuff like "I am not even going to dignify that with a response" all the time and people know that the politician is asserting that the charges are groundless when they say that. If the politician said that, I would think "OK, he has denied the charges, now it is time for the people making the accusations to come forth with the evidence to prove them."

At least to me it ain't all that crazy of a concept. Like, criminal lawyers, law school professors, or whatever, will always advise a suspect not to answer any questions from the police, just remain silent, even if you are totally innocent, because if the police have it in for you they may be able to use your words against you and ensnare you. And in life I think you can think of a lot of situations where you simply choose not to respond to certain things, or engage in certain debates, simply because no good would come out of it, even if you felt that you were correct. It's not exactly a crazy concept. In the pope's particular circumstance, I probably would have used more affirmative language in my denial, but again, that's prudence and it is easy to second guess after things have played out. If the pope had responded exactly as you did, we might be right off in the same situation that we are in today, or maybe even a worse situation.

Quote

Francis should have made a clear statement.  But what's worse than his evasion to me is the way he justified it with the idea of being silent like Jesus--which only fits if you're saying someone is persecuting you for the love of Christ.  but whether Vigano was just a crank saying falsehoods or not, he was someone with knowledge and after he had said it it was no longer him who was accusing, but the faithful who were demanding answers about abuse allegations and how much the Pope knew.  he definitely should have been direct with the faithful and I do find it inexcusable that he was evasive.  I get that you, giving him the benefit of the doubt, want to interpret his evasiveness as a denial; but again, a denial is a denial, refusing to answer the question and telling reporters to decide for themselves is simply not a denial and I doubt you'd give our fictional alternative person that you disliked the benefit of the doubt had he or she evaded the same way.

We'll I don't think it's me giving him the benefit of the doubt in this situation (I think it is basic common sense to interpret his response a denial, quite honestly). How else could you interpret it, as an admission of guilt? I think that's unreasonable, but that's just me.

Again, as for as "what the people have a right to know" from the pope, and the specific manner in which people demand that he should have responded, I think that's just shaking down the pope.

Edited October 26, 2020 by Peace

[Peace]

13 hours ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

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?

Personally, I think the Catholics are insane who are putting literally all of the heat on PF, when 99% of the abuse cases actually occurred on the watch (and were flourishing on the watch) of the 3 or 4 popes that came before PF.

Apparently, Benedict knew about the sexual abuse allegations and put McCarrick on "suspension". PF eventually laicized this cardinal. What does anyone have to say about Benedict's handling of the matter? You will hear nary a peep, on this website.

Let's keep it real. Many folks have it in for the Pope because he is not "Trad friendly" and are using the scandal to attack the PF. If they really cared about the victims or resolving the problems then they would at least have something to say about these other folks as well.

[Aloysius]

 

3 hours ago, Peace said:

We'll I don't think it's me giving him the benefit of the doubt in this situation (I think it is basic common sense to interpret his response a denial, quite honestly). How else could you interpret it, as an admission of guilt? I think that's unreasonable, but that's just me.

The actual plain interpretation is that he doesn't want to say anything because he's afraid of getting implicated in a lie.  Sorry but that's the plain interpretation of any public figure who responded to an accusation like that; it is bias towards the person that would interpret it as a denial and bias against the person that would interpret it as an admission of guilt.

3 hours ago, Peace said:

Apparently, Benedict knew about the sexual abuse allegations and put McCarrick on "suspension". PF eventually laicized this cardinal. What does anyone have to say about Benedict's handling of the matter? You will hear nary a peep, on this website

I mean, people contrast the fact that Benedict had him suspended with Francis having loosened all restrictions on him and placed him into prominence when he became pope, that's the entire crux of the Vigano accusations.  Was Benedict's private suspension enough?  No, he can definitely be criticized for that as well, but people see Benedict as having been doing something and that this something was completely undermined by Francis.  Benedict should have acted more, I agree with that criticism.  (Francis only defrocked him after public pressure, so I don't think he gets credit for doing more than Benedict, as what is under scrutiny is what they were doing before the public outcry--in that case Benedict did more, but not enough.  McCarrick's power probably played together with some uncertainty in both popes' minds about whether the accusations were true or not, the problem was he was a theological adversary of Benedict and a theological ally of Francis, and that probably affected the way each weighed what benefit of the doubt or suspicion they ultimately gave to him)

You're painting with way too broad of strokes to claim that ppl are just mad at Francis for not being trad-friendly, as I think the "trad" aspect is niche; for lack of better words there are more conservative and more liberal theological schools struggling within the church that do affect this; but yes, this is a problem that has plagued the sex abuse crisis for a long time.  Nearly every bishop accused of being soft can point to someone they actually were harsh on (I think of Donald Wuerl here)--but it always seems they were harsh on their theological adversaries when accused (even falsely accused) and lenient / gave benefit of the doubt to accusations against their theological allies.  The laity fall into this same trap as well, whether it's accusations of abuse or accusations of not handling abuse well as a bishop / pope.

I don't disagree with the Baptist site you linked on remaining silent, it appears consistent with what I'm trying to say.  It does not, however, appear consistent with Francis's use (which I still find offensive, I'm sorry but I do).  If he thinks the question is a trap in the moment, fine (he seems to fall into many other traps where he probably ought to be silent, to be honest); but it is the faithful who have been long hurt by sexual abuse scandals that were owed an answer, not some person who was just bent on destruction.  Maybe he thought Vigano was just bent on destruction, but he owed an answer not to Vigano but to the faithful who needed to hear from the man himself to clear up their confusion.  It's not an unbalanced game in an unbalanced field; he's the pope, he can release it through the Vatican Press Office if he wants, he's not caught in some trap question--we're talking about a situation of an accusation made by someone who would have knowledge of these matters that has spread uncertainty and anxiety throughout the minds of the faithful--if it's true he didn't know about McCarrick, he had an absolute obligation to make that clear to people.  full stop. 

Politicians answer like this all the time, and generally when they're politicians we like we let them get away with it and when they're politicians we dislike we demand their feet on the fire for it.  But if the politician invoked Jesus being silent I'd be just as outraged.

It is inappropriate to use that as a shield to refuse to answer a legitimate allegation.  I'll push that standard on Benedict, JPII, any bishop, any cardinal, whether theologically liberal or conservative--they have an obligation to speak clearly to the faithful on such matters. 

[fides' Jack]

Today it was reported that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI made a pretty serious error in his support of a German group that we now know has done considerable damage to families in Germany.  He was not perfect.  Neither was Pope St. John Paul II - who committed at least one serious sin against the Church during his service as pope (that I know of).

Benedict XVI has now publicly apologized.  That's humility.

Pope Francis has never apologized for anything, or taken personal responsibility for anything that has happened in the Church, EXCEPT FOR the removal of the pachamama and throwing it into the river.

 

The fact remains that it's the job description of the pope to clarify matters of faith and morals.  And if there is any blurry area, or a footnote that's appeared in his document, or something said off the cuff, he has the primary responsibility to ensure that the morality of the discussion in question is clarified.  That's exactly why we have a pope - to clarify those issues with authority.  That's exactly what the Church tells us the role of the pope is.

When PF chooses to believe the lie that "truth is silent", and chooses to remain silent which the Church is attacked and ransacked from within, he takes on himself a sin greater than just about anything else anyone can do.  It's much more than just not doing his job.

And now that we have another round of bishops closing off public Masses, they're failing in their roles, too.

As St. John Chrysostom said, "The road to hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, with bishops as their signposts."

“It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II, II, q. 33, a. 45

Our shepherds need our prayers more than any other time in Church history.

[Peace]

16 minutes ago, Aloysius said:

 

The actual plain interpretation is that he doesn't want to say anything because he's afraid of getting implicated in a lie.  Sorry but that's the plain interpretation of any public figure who responded to an accusation like that; it is bias towards the person that would interpret it as a denial and bias against the person that would interpret it as an admission of guilt.

I mean, people contrast the fact that Benedict had him suspended with Francis having loosened all restrictions on him and placed him into prominence when he became pope, that's the entire crux of the Vigano accusations.  Was Benedict's private suspension enough?  No, he can definitely be criticized for that as well, but people see Benedict as having been doing something and that this something was completely undermined by Francis.  Benedict should have acted more, I agree with that criticism.  (Francis only defrocked him after public pressure, so I don't think he gets credit for doing more than Benedict, as what is under scrutiny is what they were doing before the public outcry--in that case Benedict did more, but not enough.  McCarrick's power probably played together with some uncertainty in both popes' minds about whether the accusations were true or not, the problem was he was a theological adversary of Benedict and a theological ally of Francis, and that probably affected the way each weighed what benefit of the doubt or suspicion they ultimately gave to him)

You're painting with way too broad of strokes to claim that ppl are just mad at Francis for not being trad-friendly, as I think the "trad" aspect is niche; for lack of better words there are more conservative and more liberal theological schools struggling within the church that do affect this; but yes, this is a problem that has plagued the sex abuse crisis for a long time.  Nearly every bishop accused of being soft can point to someone they actually were harsh on (I think of Donald Wuerl here)--but it always seems they were harsh on their theological adversaries when accused (even falsely accused) and lenient / gave benefit of the doubt to accusations against their theological allies.  The laity fall into this same trap as well, whether it's accusations of abuse or accusations of not handling abuse well as a bishop / pope.

I don't disagree with the Baptist site you linked on remaining silent, it appears consistent with what I'm trying to say.  It does not, however, appear consistent with Francis's use (which I still find offensive, I'm sorry but I do).  If he thinks the question is a trap in the moment, fine (he seems to fall into many other traps where he probably ought to be silent, to be honest); but it is the faithful who have been long hurt by sexual abuse scandals that were owed an answer, not some person who was just bent on destruction.  Maybe he thought Vigano was just bent on destruction, but he owed an answer not to Vigano but to the faithful who needed to hear from the man himself to clear up their confusion.  It's not an unbalanced game in an unbalanced field; he's the pope, he can release it through the Vatican Press Office if he wants, he's not caught in some trap question--we're talking about a situation of an accusation made by someone who would have knowledge of these matters that has spread uncertainty and anxiety throughout the minds of the faithful--if it's true he didn't know about McCarrick, he had an absolute obligation to make that clear to people.  full stop. 

Politicians answer like this all the time, and generally when they're politicians we like we let them get away with it and when they're politicians we dislike we demand their feet on the fire for it.  But if the politician invoked Jesus being silent I'd be just as outraged.

It is inappropriate to use that as a shield to refuse to answer a legitimate allegation.  I'll push that standard on Benedict, JPII, any bishop, any cardinal, whether theologically liberal or conservative--they have an obligation to speak clearly to the faithful on such matters. 

That's cool. I think at this point we have both kind of hashed out our main thoughts on it, so perhaps it is time to be "silent" now that we have both said what we wanted to say about the matter. We just have different perspectives on some things, on what is acceptable conduct and what it not, and how certain things should be understood. At this point I think we are going to end up re-hashing the same arguments.

I am far from a liberal lets all just be friends Catholic though. I consider myself a conservative Catholic, but I am not a "Trad". Of all the popes during my lifetime I would probably make JP2 my favorite, then Benedict, then Francis. Could I be biased in favor of PF? Possibly, but I don't think so. I think I am biased in favor of having a huge amount of respect for the office, regardless of who is in it. I think I have a higher level of deference for the office than many others on this forum, but we've had those debates in the past I think.

5 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Today it was reported that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI made a pretty serious error in his support of a German group that we now know has done considerable damage to families in Germany.  He was not perfect.  Neither was Pope St. John Paul II - who committed at least one serious sin against the Church during his service as pope (that I know of).

Benedict XVI has now publicly apologized.  That's humility.

Pope Francis has never apologized for anything, or taken personal responsibility for anything that has happened in the Church, EXCEPT FOR the removal of the pachamama and throwing it into the river.

 

The fact remains that it's the job description of the pope to clarify matters of faith and morals.  And if there is any blurry area, or a footnote that's appeared in his document, or something said off the cuff, he has the primary responsibility to ensure that the morality of the discussion in question is clarified.  That's exactly why we have a pope - to clarify those issues with authority.  That's exactly what the Church tells us the role of the pope is.

When PF chooses to believe the lie that "truth is silent", and chooses to remain silent which the Church is attacked and ransacked from within, he takes on himself a sin greater than just about anything else anyone can do.  It's much more than just not doing his job.

And now that we have another round of bishops closing off public Masses, they're failing in their roles, too.

As St. John Chrysostom said, "The road to hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, with bishops as their signposts."

“It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II, II, q. 33, a. 45

Our shepherds need our prayers more than any other time in Church history.

He has never apologized for anything other than Pachamama?

Friend, let me introduce you to a tool known as "Google".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/04/12/pope-admits-grave-error-apologizes-for-not-believing-chile-sex-abuse-victims/

But let me guess, you aren't satisfied? If the pope dons ash and sackcloth, you say "not good enough, he should have laid prostrate", right?

[fides' Jack]

8 minutes ago, Peace said:

He has never apologized for anything other than Pachamama?

Friend, let me introduce you to a tool known as "Google".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/04/12/pope-admits-grave-error-apologizes-for-not-believing-chile-sex-abuse-victims/

But let me guess, you aren't satisfied? If the pope dons ash and sackcloth, you say "not good enough, he should have laid prostrate", right?

I knew you'd come up with something pretty quickly.  You're right, and my over-generalization was too specific to be correct.  But it's still generally right.  He hasn't apologized for his own personal mistakes - this included.

Seriously - he apologized for not believing them?  Right, because that's exactly what they want an apology for, for the pope not believing their accusations.  Not anything like an apology for any role he might have played in the wrongdoings in the first place...  Just for not believing them.

Find another example.  I don't need a stronger apology, just an apology over the right reasons.  This just seems like another way to lay the blame somewhere else.

[Peace]

1 minute ago, fides' Jack said:

I knew you'd come up with something pretty quickly.  You're right, and my over-generalization was too specific to be correct.  But it's still generally right.  He hasn't apologized for his own personal mistakes - this included.

Seriously - he apologized for not believing them?  Right, because that's exactly what they want an apology for, for the pope not believing their accusations.  Not anything like an apology for any role he might have played in the wrongdoings in the first place...  Just for not believing them.

Find another example.  I don't need a stronger apology, just an apology over the right reasons.  This just seems like another way to lay the blame somewhere else.

As I wrote before:

And let's keep it real here. Some of ya'll are simply haters. If the Pope responds in 1 year ya'll will bicker and complain that he should have responded in 1 month. If he responds in 1 month, ya'll will bicker and complain that he should have responded in 1 week. If he responds in 1 week, ya'll will bicker and complain that he should have responded within 24 hours. If he responds within 24 hours, ya'll will bicker and complain that he should have responded within 2 hours. If he responds within 2 hours and says XYZ, ya'll will bicker and complain that he should have said ABC. If he says ABC, ya'll will bicker and complain that he should have said DEF. And on, and on, and on, because that is precisely what haters do. They can only see fault and cannot see good. Could that be a reason why PF thinks that not responding to it all in the first place is a better option?