McCarrick Report

[Anastasia]

On 11/12/2020 at 7:18 AM, Lilllabettt said:

https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2017/01/18/fr-james-martin-answers-5-common-questions-about-silence

In case it isn't clear to anyone reading, this is 1000% garbage.

I would say there is more in it i.e. there is an important message in the garbage that works on subconscious level so I feel a need to bring it out.  It is:

Fr Rodrigues does not understand the will of Christ just like Christ does not understand the will of His Father yet out of obedience to Christ – just like Christ sacrifices Himself out of obedience to His Father – he betrays Christ on a command of Christ and that action brings him closer to Christ.

This is the message, now the garbage it is packed into.

“Confusing as it seems to some Christian viewers, Christ requests this contradictory act from his priest. It makes little sense to anyone, least of all to Father Rodrigues, who has assiduously resisted it for himself. Yet he does it. Because Jesus has asked him to.
How can we understand that theologically? Perhaps by looking at the experience of Jesus on the cross, as recorded in the Gospels. In the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus struggles mightily to understand God’s will, and says, “Father if you are willing, remove this cup from me.” He does not wish to die. But then he says, “Yet not my will, but yours be done” (Lk 22:42).”

Jesus did not “struggles mightily to understand God’s will” because Father’s will also was His will, two wills in perfect harmony. Jesus is one Person and He knew what He was going to do; He spoke about that many times. He struggled with the approaching torture and death, both as the Son of Man and the Son of God. Fr. Martins needs to say “Jesus struggled to understand the will of the Father” to pull Jesus down a bit making Him a mere human, to explain “Jesus” in the movie saying “step on my image”. Yet he probably realized that the statement was questionable so he promptly moves on, throwing a huge emotional picture which is entirely truthful:

“Jesus does something that everyone in his circle opposes and misunderstands. Even Peter doesn’t want Jesus to suffer: “God forbid it, Lord! This must never happen to you!” (Mt. 16:22). The apostles do not want Jesus to suffer, much less to embrace the cross. It makes no sense to them.”

Those sentences imply “Fr Rodrigues is just like Christ’s disciples”. And then he returns to Christ, a very different Christ:

“Yet Jesus accepts his fate because this is what the Father asks. His actions make no sense outside of his relationship to the Father. Likewise, Father Rodrigues’s actions make no sense outside of his relationship to Christ.”

Here Fr Martin is clearly making parallels between a relationship of “Fr Rodrigues – Christ” and a relationship “Son of God – the Father”. The difference is that the result of the relationship of Christ with His Father was Christ’s self-sacrifice = self-affirmation, being Who He is and Atonement but the result of the relationship of “Fr Rodrigues – Christ” was the denial of Christ and the denial of who he was.

“In a sense, there is nothing subtle here: He apostatizes, finally, because Christ asks him to. And for those who say that Christ would never ask something like that, ask yourself how the disciples felt when Jesus told them he would have to suffer and die.”

Another swap. “Christ” in the movie does nothing himself, he asked Fr Rodrigues to do something = to deny him. The real Christ in the Gospels does not ask the disciples to do anything, He tell them that He was going to do something = to sacrifice Himself. (And, also He warns them not to deny Him.)

Finally, a really good twist:

“The third level of humility, the highest, is when a person is able to choose something dishonourable because it brings him or her closer to Christ. “I desire to be regarded as a useless fool for Christ, who before me was regarded as such,” in the words of the Spiritual Exercises. A person accepts being misunderstood, perhaps by everyone, just as Christ was.”

Thus Apostle Paul who was beaten up numerous times and eventually killed because he did not shut up but went on talking about Christ and who wrote “if we are faithless, He (Christ) remains faithful – for He cannot deny Himself” is somehow made akin to Fr Rodriquez who denies Christ. I am deliberately saying “Apostle Paul is made like Fr Rodriquez” and not “Fr Rodriquez made lie Apostle Paul” because the blur-discourse of Fr Martin inevitably blurs Christ, Gospels, Apostle Paul making everything relative. In this blur the denial of Christ, being the greatest act of humility, brings a person closer to Christ.

Hence a synopsis (a kernel):

Fr Rodrigues does not understand the will of Christ just like Christ does not understand the will of His Father yet out of obedience to Christ – just like Christ sacrifices Himself out of obedience to His Father – he betrays Christ on a command of Christ and that action brings him closer to Christ.

Edited November 13, 2020 by Anastasia

[Lilllabettt]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

But here is the thing. What if you were in that situation and our Lord really did say to you "Lillabettt. I want you to step on my figure."

What would you do? Would you step on it, or would you be on some intellectual "No, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church states at paragraph 1208 that blasphemy is an intrinsic evil"?

I think that you would step on it, if that is what God told you to do, correct?

Now, you are probably right in that from what we know, God would never say such a thing in that situation (although I can't say that I have 100% absolute confidence in that conclusion). But that's not the hypothetical. The hypothetical is that God actually said it. From that standpoint, the Jesuits would be correct, would they not? It's not like you would pull out your Catechism and be like "No, Lord . . ."

Sure, there are all of these questions about whether the discernment is valid, whether the person is merely just trying to justify his actions under the pretense of discernment, or if he has been deceived, and so forth. But that is a bit beside the main point I think - that there is a legit role for discernment that goes beyond just a black and white following of code like a computer.

Yeah but in the movie God literally spoke to him! What, you thought that was supposed to be a hallucination?

Yeah it is Hollywood stuff, but I'm not talking about a situation where a person is going through some vague or amorphous process of trying to figure out what God wants you to do, without any type of clarity. Sometimes "you know" what God wants you to do in a given situation. And sometimes he does literally speak to people. Sometimes you just know without any doubt whatsoever what he wants you to do in a given situation.

I mean, if we are just talking about some BS where people are using "discernment" as a justification to do whatever it was that that they wanted to do in the first place, that is one thing. But that's not really what I am assuming here. I am assuming that a person legitimately (and in an earnest spirit) is attempting to discern the will of God.

I think there is room for that, although I would say that what the Church has specifically taught should be paramount in making that determination. Like you, if a person comes to a conclusion that is at odds with what the Church teaches, I think that his determination should be considered highly suspect, he would probably want to check his true motives and other outside influences that may be causing him to go the opposite way.

Now if we could only get people on this forum to apply that principle and show some respect for the Church's teaching on the death penalty! Alas.

Yeah but 7 years penance was a walk in the park back then. Jacob had to toil for 14 years just to marry this chick Rachel.

Yeah if they are saying it is the "pinnacle" I would disagree with that too.

Wait a second. All the pedophile priests are Jesuits all of a sudden? Come on now.

But what if you think they are playing semantic games, but they really are not?

I am assuming that the above statement applies to PF as well. It's interesting to me that you have that perception of him, as playing "semantic games" or what have you. That has not been my perception of him at all. I think that sometimes he speaks too loosely and would be better to choose some of his words more carefully. I think that some of his handling of matters cold have been handled much better, but I don't buy the line that he is trying to hide the ball for some nefarious reason or some vague notion of "The Good of the Church" or something like that.

That could be in your head. Or I could be willfully blind to it. To be concluded in the next episode, I suppose.

Well one possibility is that he actually didn't recall anything about the allegations at the time that he made the "I know nothing" statement.

Like, if in the year 2013 someone has a vague 30 second conversation with you about XYZ by the time we get to 2018, it could very well be the case that the entire memory of the conversation is gone. Stuff like that happens to me all the time, where someone mentions a conversation to me that we had 6 months or a year ago, but I have no memory of it at all when they mention it to me, and I'll literally be like "I never said that, what are you talking about?" When I say "I never said that" it it not a lie or me being dishonest. I honestly didn't think that I said that, because the conversation was no longer within my memory.

One thing to me that is pretty telling is that there does not seem to be any record of any documents being formally submitted to PF concerning this matter (unless they were burned at the conclave!) That is pretty odd I think. If this guy McCarrrick is persona non-gratis and the entirety of Christendom from time immemorial is aware of his abuses, nobody thought it might be a good idea to send PF a letter or an email stating "Hey pal, watch out for this guy"? Does that make sense?

"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed"

If an angel, "the Virgin Mary" or "Jesus" Himself appears and tells me I need to apostasize, commit blasphemy, nuke a civilian population center, cover up sex abuse, etc etc I can be 100% sure it's not the BVM or Jesus. It's either me having a psychotic break or a super powered demon. So no ... if "Jesus Christ" appeared right now and told me to deny Him I'd tell him to go screw himself.  If my ability to resist or consent were messed with in some way, its possible I could be deceived. But then that would be bad discernment on the part of someone whose ability to discern properly is fundamentally undermined. Understandable, yes, reduced culpability (if any) yes, but once again, not in any way shape or form legit discernment.  "God" will never appear and tell you that  Jesus didn't rise from the dead. Because God is not a liar right. 

The Jesuits are not the only pedos in the world but. They run high schools. They are centrally organized in a way a lot of religious orders are not. And their spirituality can take people to dark places.

Priests and religious who abuse others sexually often have this elaborate "discernment" they bring their victims into where they "discern" the Lord wants them to have a sexual relationship.  Its sick stuff but if you've ever wondered how a sex abuser can do what they do and then go say Mass - in a lot of cases its because they are convinced the spirit is leading them. Basic Catholic moral theology  - eg "premarital sex is a mortal sin" doesn't apply to them because they've discerned. Then they discern with the nun they are directing spiritually or the high school kid they are coaching, that they are called to be United in the flesh and worship God together that way. Then lying about it, that's also ok.  It's what happens when the modern deformation of Jesuit spirituality is taught to people with damaged psyches. 

Idk why you are now arguing that PF didnt know - his own report says he knew. What ... you think he knew and then momentarily forgot? I've forgotten a lot of conversations over the years ... pretty sure I would remember the conversation where I find out my direct report is an accused pervert. Maybe he honestly can forget such things in which case the Pope job is not a good fit for his talents. 

I am pretty sure PF plays games because: 1. he is a Jesuit, and Jesuits are trained to play games. It's a distinctive feature of their charism. 2. He does just what Jesuits who play games do - speaks and acts ambiguously so that you need to parse his language with a fine tooth comb and different people can have a bunch of wildly different interpretations about the basic meaning of his communication. 3. If game playing were not the point, he could fix the mess quickly by clarifying.  But he never does because the mess is the point.

Idk what the Popes motives are... you can play games in an effort to win Elizabethan England back to Catholicism. You can play games because you are a power tripping prick. You can play games because you really believe it's an effective way of reaching people on the periphery. You can play games because you want to blow dog whistles using code words. Lots of different motives none of them real good where clerical abuse is concerned. I'm reminded of the repeated Scalafari interviews where PF was "misquoted" saying Jesus was not divine, then another where there is no hell, etc etc. He kept giving these interviews and getting misquoted, and never directly denying the misquotations. Why did he keep doing the interviews? Just awful judgment? Misunderstanding of his responsibilities as Pope (vs a non pope whose priority can be trying to convert a single atheist journalist, and talking to them even tho u know you will be misquoted?) Wanting to dog whistle to the heterodox about his real beliefs? Create ambiguity about these things? None of the options are very good. 

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Lilllabettt said:

if "Jesus Christ" appeared right now and told me to deny Him I'd tell him to go screw himself.

            ...well said!

[Peace]

6 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed"

If an angel, "the Virgin Mary" or "Jesus" Himself appears and tells me I need to apostasize, commit blasphemy, nuke a civilian population center, cover up sex abuse, etc etc I can be 100% sure it's not the BVM or Jesus. It's either me having a psychotic break or a super powered demon. So no ... if "Jesus Christ" appeared right now and told me to deny Him I'd tell him to go screw himself.  If my ability to resist or consent were messed with in some way, its possible I could be deceived. But then that would be bad discernment on the part of someone whose ability to discern properly is fundamentally undermined. Understandable, yes, reduced culpability (if any) yes, but once again, not in any way shape or form legit discernment.  "God" will never appear and tell you that  Jesus didn't rise from the dead. Because God is not a liar right. 

Ah but Jesus is not mentioned in that Bible verse now is he?

At least to me, it seems that you leave no room, or very little room, for "conscience" or "discernment" in your own life. It kind of seems that you have living out the faith reduced to an intellectual exercise of applying Rule X to situation Y, somewhat like a robot executing computer code. I don't mean for that to be an insult but it does seem like you have a general disdain for the concepts. Is that a fair or incorrect assessment?

Look, I think you are missing the point of the hypothetical. The hypothetical says "Jesus appeared" not "an angel appeared" or "a demon pretending to be Jesus" appeared.

The point is this - we do not yet share in the beatific vision. We have a very limited understanding of God. What happens when God further reveals himself, and that revelation conflicts with your previous understanding or expectation of him? Do you follow God, or do say "screw you," as you so eloquently put it, and continue to follow your rule-book insisting that you are correct, when you have the truth right before you?

Do you stone the adulteress because that is what is written in God's law, or do you refuse to do it when the Lord appears before you and instructs you otherwise?

That's the point of the hypothetical. Sure, I don't think that Jesus is going to appear and tell someone to step on his image, rape an infant, nuke a city, either. If that happened in real life I would suspect, just as you suppose, that it was an "angel pretending" or something along those lines too. I already made that clear in my previous posts.

6 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

The Jesuits are not the only pedos in the world but. They run high schools. They are centrally organized in a way a lot of religious orders are not. And their spirituality can take people to dark places.

Priests and religious who abuse others sexually often have this elaborate "discernment" they bring their victims into where they "discern" the Lord wants them to have a sexual relationship.  Its sick stuff but if you've ever wondered how a sex abuser can do what they do and then go say Mass - in a lot of cases its because they are convinced the spirit is leading them.

Basic Catholic moral theology  - eg "premarital sex is a mortal sin" doesn't apply to them because they've discerned. Then they discern with the nun they are directing spiritually or the high school kid they are coaching, that they are called to be United in the flesh and worship God together that way. Then lying about it, that's also ok.  It's what happens when the modern deformation of Jesuit spirituality is taught to people with damaged psyches. 

Nah. I don't really buy into all of that. Sorry. Look, I think they are just making excuses to justify their evil, like how some folks would quote the Bible to justify slavery or racism.

That does not mean that there is anything wrong with the Bible, or with the concept of attempting to discern the will of God, simply because people abuse them to do evil. You can take any type of Catholic spirituality and abuse it.

6 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

Idk why you are now arguing that PF didnt know - his own report says he knew. What ... you think he knew and then momentarily forgot? I've forgotten a lot of conversations over the years ... pretty sure I would remember the conversation where I find out my direct report is an accused pervert. Maybe he honestly can forget such things in which case the Pope job is not a good fit for his talents. 

I am not arguing that he didn't know.

Whether he momentarily forgot or not, I don't know the answer to that. But yes, that is certainly a possibility. The report (at least the parts I have seen) do not contain any statements along the lines of "On XYZ date Cardinal ABC sat down with PF and had a 20 minute conversation with PF, in which he detailed the accusations against Cardinal McCarrick." It states something like "PF was only aware of rumors of improper conduct" or something like that. That's why I said I would want to look into the report and get more detail about specifically what was said to him. Look, if PF is at a dinner party in 2013 and the great Vigano comes up to him with a glass of wine in his hand and whispers into his left ear "You know that McCarrick, he is a real pervert" and PF is like "I'm a just ignore that spicy tidbit because Benedict and JP2 were allowing McCarrick to fly around the world acting on behalf of the Church, so obviously that is BS" - yeah maybe the pope, and old man as popes tend to be, forgot about that convo five years later in the year 2018.

Now whether it went down like that, or in some other manner, I don't know yet. Show me the money.

I'll be trying to get into the rest of the report at some point to see if there is more detail about the specific mode of communication of the rumors.

6 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

I am pretty sure PF plays games because: 1. he is a Jesuit, and Jesuits are trained to play games. It's a distinctive feature of their charism. 2. He does just what Jesuits who play games do - speaks and acts ambiguously so that you need to parse his language with a fine tooth comb and different people can have a bunch of wildly different interpretations about the basic meaning of his communication. 3. If game playing were not the point, he could fix the mess quickly by clarifying.  But he never does because the mess is the point.

LOL. You really don't like them. Tell them why you mad son! Tell them why you mad.

That's cool though. I ain't about to take sides in the great Jesuit - Lillabett beef of 2020. I'm not educated on the order so I'm not in a position to speak on them. But at least I should check it out myself to see if there is proof to back up your assertions. So it's useful from that standpoint.

6 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

Idk what the Popes motives are... you can play games in an effort to win Elizabethan England back to Catholicism. You can play games because you are a power tripping prick. You can play games because you really believe it's an effective way of reaching people on the periphery. You can play games because you want to blow dog whistles using code words. Lots of different motives none of them real good where clerical abuse is concerned. I'm reminded of the repeated Scalafari interviews where PF was "misquoted" saying Jesus was not divine, then another where there is no hell, etc etc. He kept giving these interviews and getting misquoted, and never directly denying the misquotations. Why did he keep doing the interviews? Just awful judgment? Misunderstanding of his responsibilities as Pope (vs a non pope whose priority can be trying to convert a single atheist journalist, and talking to them even tho u know you will be misquoted?) Wanting to dog whistle to the heterodox about his real beliefs? Create ambiguity about these things? None of the options are very good.

There is way too much Monday morning quarterbacking going on here. Look, yeah there are many situations in which I think he could have carried out his duties as pope better, or I see myself handling in a different manner were I in the same situation. But it is a difficult job and he is a faulty human being just like every other person on the planet. You tell me where we are going to find this mythical pope of lore who is going to swoop down from the heavens and always have the proper words to say, deal with this insane media, numerous sexual abuse scandals, all the while converting the entire Earth to the Catholic faith by the sheer eloquence of his statements, and most importantly satisfying the particular demands of Lillabett on Phatmass?

We already know that many of the same problems that existed under PF existed (and indeed appear to have been much worse) under the popes that came before him. How far back in history do we need to go to find this pope that Catholics will not whine and complain about? We literally have to go back hundreds of years into history to find a pope that people were happy with, and if these same Catholics were alive during that pope's reign, I am pretty sure they would have been whining and complaining about him not doing his job right then.

I shall now end my rant. Have a nice day.

[Lilllabettt]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

Ah but Jesus is not mentioned in that Bible verse now is he?

At least to me, it seems that you leave no room, or very little room, for "conscience" or "discernment" in your own life. It kind of seems that you have living out the faith reduced to an intellectual exercise of applying Rule X to situation Y, somewhat like a robot executing computer code. I don't mean for that to be an insult but it does seem like you have a general disdain for the concepts. Is that a fair or incorrect assessment?

Do you have a background in evangelical fundamentalism or other system with a rigid interpretation of the Bible?  The Bible is an inexhaustibly rich literary source but it must be very dry reading for you if you are limited to reading it this way. St Paul's instructions to the galatians are to not listen to anyone who preaches a false Gospel. The list of people he mentions - an angel or himself even, is not intended to be exhaustive and limited to those 2 types of false preacher. Naming himself and an angel is supposed to communicate the idea that everyone from a-z is in that bucket - anyone or anything that comes preaching a false Gospel is accursed. The principle he is teaching them is they need to cling to the Gospel and not visions and wonders and charismatic personalities.

This is the Gold Standard of good discernment by the way - and if you've ever been on a good quality Ignatian retreat this is what they teach.  Whenever a vision or apparition commands disobedience to the Gospel you know something is up. When St Faustina had Jesus appearing to her, sometimes He would request something and then an order by her religious superior (a person with legitimate ecclesiastical  authority in the external forum) would contradict it. So, St Faustina had to choose to obey her superior or the vision of Jesus. Because she had rock solid formation she chose her superior. This was a big test - would the Jesus she was seeing be mad she obeyed her superior rather than him? If so that would have indicated a false vision; "Jesus" has a tail and hooves under those white robes. 

"I will follow Your will, insofar as You will permit me to do so through Your representative. O my Jesus, it cannot be helped, but I give priority to the voice of the Church over the voice with which You speak to me" (Diary of St. Faustina, 497).

In other words, the Gospel is the objective ruler we can use to guide us to good discernment. 

This is not an intellectual exercise.  It's a fundamental principle by which Christians navigate the world. 

1 hour ago, Peace said:

Do you stone the adulteress because that is what is written in God's law, or do you refuse to do it when the Lord appears before you and instructs you otherwise?

You keep bringing this up ... it's not relevant. The Gospel is not a law, it is saving knowledge of who God is. 

For example we know God does not do evil so that good may come of it. This is a new thing we know about who God is; ancient Judaism did not teach this and it's far from apparent in the Torah. It's the Gospel, the good news - & who gives us the good news and not the fake news - the Church. (I'm not referring to the human side of the Church either)

When we discern and say "I'm going to do X, it's the right thing to do even though the Gospel says it is not," we are not breaking a law, we are breaking faith. We no longer believe in the Gospel as the truth about who God and Goodness Itself, is. If we do X even as we acknowledge it's wrong, THAT is breaking a law. Congratulations you're still a Christian, just a sinful one. 

Maybe 1% of decisions in life are black and white, because of the Gospel. 99% of decisions are in a grey area, like whether to go to your brother's wedding which is outside the church. Whether trans identity is real and should be treated by society that way. I recently adopted an embryonic baby. The Church doesn't preach whether this is acceptable or not in light of who we know God is. I had to discern it myself using the Gospel as my yardstick.  

Back to the principle of mental reservation.  What this doctrine authentically means is: if you are faced with a choice between justice, and revealing the truth to people who have no right to know it, choose justice. This is 100% congruent with who the Gospel says God is. God is not a liar, but neither is His top priority blasting the truth on a boombox 24/7.  The devil is in the details as it is a risky and perilous way to operate. If your ruler and guide is discernment rather than the Gospel, very likely you will get it wrong.

Someone using mental reservation to justify not disclosing sex misconduct in order to "protect the Church's reputation" as @HumilityAndPatience suggested,  is doing the wrong. God cares nothing about his reputation compared to the truth. The faithful have a right to know what their leaders knew and when about sexual misconduct- using mental reservation to avoid disclosing this is injustice.  

In this thread we are talking about 2 different things.  My fault as I brought them up in an attempt to demonstrate how Jesuit spirituality has rotted.

1. Is prudential judgment around when to use mental reservation.  Prudential judgment in this area can just be BAD, and if someone is using "personal discernment" rather than the Gospel as the ruler of discernment, they are very likely to eff it up.

2. Is Fr Martins "discernment" around whether to commit blasphemy and apostasize to save lives or because a vision of "Jesus" appeared and orders it. There is no prudential judgment in this area. This is the 1% of black and white things the Gospel covers. Theres a clear red line between the Gospel and doing blasphemy for any reason. But ... like I said. If you put discernment over the Gospel, then it becomes harder to know right from wrong. The Gospel says it's wrong, but your "discernment" and also "Jesus" standing here, say it's right. Who and what do you believe? This is not a question of following the law. Do you believe the Gospel or "discernment" and "Jesus." 

For many modern Jesuits it's the 2nd option. Or, how they've explained it to me is, personal discernment is more or less the Gospel itself. The Gospel isn't something that's preached by the Church but an individual revelation from God to the individual made thru discernment. (This is garbage.)

I brought it up to illustrate why mental reservation is deployed ineffectively so much in modern world... because it is deployed by people who privilege discernment over the Gospel.

[Lilllabettt]

Basically... in the hypothetical where "Jesus" appears and tells someone to nuke a civilian population center, apostasize, rape a child, Fr Martin suggests good discernment could go either way. As he says, betray the Gospel, betray Christ, to grow closer to "Christ". Its a fake Hollywood situation but the point is in the hypothetical situation,  Fr Martin says you might discern these things which are totally opposed to the Gospel are the right thing to do. And that is good discernment. This was meant as an exemplar of how broken Jesuit spirituality is ... surprise surprise I am arguing with you about whether he is correct. Gobsmacked am I. But illustrative that this philosophy - personal discernment is King - has really made inroads. 

Edited November 13, 2020 by Lilllabettt

[Peace]

13 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

Basically... in the hypothetical where "Jesus" appears and tells someone to nuke a civilian population center, apostasize, rape a child, Fr Martin suggests good discernment could go either way. As he says, betray the Gospel, betray Christ, to grow closer to "Christ". Its a fake Hollywood situation but the point is in the hypothetical situation,  Fr Martin says you might discern these things which are totally opposed to the Gospel are the right thing to do. And that is good discernment. This was meant as an exemplar of how broken Jesuit spirituality is ... surprise surprise I am arguing with you about whether he is correct. Gobsmacked am I. But illustrative that this philosophy - personal discernment is King - has really made inroads. 

I haven't even read the Fr. Martin article yet, but from the summary that you have provided in this thread - it was not my intention to argue that his view (as summarized by you) is correct. I am attempting to discuss a more general question relating to the choice between what we understand to be the truth based on our intellectual reasoning versus being put face to face with the truth in the form of our Lord himself. So to a certain extent we may be talking past each other. I'll respond later with a bit more detail concerning that.

[HumilityAndPatience]

3 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

Someone using mental reservation to justify not disclosing sex misconduct in order to "protect the Church's reputation" as @HumilityAndPatience suggested,  is doing the wrong. God cares nothing about his reputation compared to the truth. The faithful have a right to know what their leaders knew and when about sexual misconduct- using mental reservation to avoid disclosing this is injustice.

This is a strawman. The charitable assumption being proposed is that PF held any allegations as pending affirmation. This is not "not disclosing sex misconduct". 

As the report itself suggests, the reason JP2 promoted McCarrick so much is because of his experience of Communist regimes smearing reputations of clerics. This is more convoluted than you are proposing, with respect. 

4 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

I brought it up to illustrate why mental reservation is deployed ineffectively so much in modern world... because it is deployed by people who privilege discernment over the Gospel.

Does the imperfect implementation of a justifiable action (prudential judgement in respect of communicating) mean that that action shouldn't be allowed?

In other words, can you not see the risk of legalism invading logic and reason? Take the example of hiding a just man from murderers as a starting point. Do you agree that it is okay to "lie" to his assailants? If so, you agree with the principle. 

If you agree with the principle, in cases where there is charitable scope to assume justifiable prudential judgement has been used, who are we to judge that judgement? 

[Lilllabettt]

2 hours ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

who are we to judge that judgement? 

Jesus commands us to judge such things, and to do so righteously. 

Just pretend PF is a lay high school principal and not the Pope. Pretend you are a parent and he treats questions about a disgraced teacher the way he has this. Would you be so willing to stretch credulity "to be charitable." Would you tolerate anything but a direct answer. let's be real. You would pull your kid out yesterday. Me, I would be on the phone to the police. PF gets more runway because hes a priest and the Pope. It's called clericalism.

 

[HumilityAndPatience]

3 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

Would you be so willing to stretch credulity

That credulity was stretched to through decades and three pontificates

[Peace]

22 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

Jesus commands us to judge such things, and to do so righteously. 

Just pretend PF is a lay high school principal and not the Pope. Pretend you are a parent and he treats questions about a disgraced teacher the way he has this. Would you be so willing to stretch credulity "to be charitable." Would you tolerate anything but a direct answer. let's be real. You would pull your kid out yesterday. Me, I would be on the phone to the police. PF gets more runway because hes a priest and the Pope. It's called clericalism.

 

Did we not just get a detailed 500 page report on the issue? Did PF not order the investigation that resulted in this report?

Since we are keeping things real here, ain't it true that you would never have been satisfied by what this "Jesuit" said about the matter, no matter what he said?

Like if PF gave you the standard politicians line of "I unequivocally deny these slanderous accusations" you would have been like "OK, cool"? Come on now. No, we would still be right here complaining about something or another at this very moment in time. . .

He gave you a 500 page detailed report and you are complaining about not getting the politician's line.

[Lilllabettt]

1 hour ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

That credulity was stretched to through decades and three pontificates

So??? We found out that was a big mistake didn't we? You are making my point for me!

47 minutes ago, Peace said:

Since we are keeping things real here, ain't it true that you would never have been satisfied by what this "Jesuit" said about the matter, no matter what he said?

Tbh, the only thing I would have accepted is him coming clean, saying he knew about McCarricks reputation and the allegations against him, I thought it was handled, I effed up, sorry.

He didn't do any of that though. He said things like investigate it yourself and i don't remember if Vigano told me. 

If he unequivocally denied knowing anything (which he did eventually did do, in the interview with the Mexican journalist where he said "i knew nothing") I wouldn't have taken his word for it. Because it is unbelievable. And my reluctance to give the benefit of the doubt has been proven right, by this report.

Glad the truth came out but look at all the twisting in the wind done meanwhile.  Should i hold my breath for an apology? 

He apologized for his trainwreck handling of the Chile sex abuse scandal,  but only after Cardinal OMalley rebuked him in public. Imo that's what he needs to fly straight where sexual corruption is concerned. I'm happy to do my part but are you? 

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Lilllabettt said:

Tbh, the only thing I would have accepted is him coming clean, saying he knew about McCarricks reputation and the allegations against him, I thought it was handled, I effed up, sorry.

Tbh, the only thing I would have accepted is him coming clean, saying he knew about McCarricks reputation and the allegations against him, I thought it was handled, I effed up, sorry.

He didn't do any of that though. He said things like investigate it yourself and i don't remember if Vigano told me. 

I agree with you that this would have been a much better way to handle it.

Would you really have accepted that though? Or would you be like "Well it wasn't sincere. The only reason why he apologized is because he was criticized in public" like you did below with respect to the Chile apology?

1 hour ago, Lilllabettt said:

If he unequivocally denied knowing anything (which he did eventually did do, in the interview with the Mexican journalist where he said "i knew nothing") I wouldn't have taken his word for it. Because it is unbelievable. And my reluctance to give the benefit of the doubt has been proven right, by this report.

Well we went from "knowing nothing" to having heard a vague rumor about him at a cocktail party 5 years before the interview. If you consider that being "proven right" that's cool by me. What you find unbelievable I find quite plausible. But I think the debate has been had already. No reason to beat a dead horse.

1 hour ago, Lilllabettt said:

Glad the truth came out but look at all the twisting in the wind done meanwhile.  Should i hold my breath for an apology? 

I don't even see why the apology matters at all, to be honest. It's like issuing an apology for slavery. Who cares?! I want the 40 acres and the mule, you can keep the apology. I want to know what penalty the person is going to pay for it, how the victims are going to be compensated, what concrete steps are going to be taken to make sure that it doesn't happen again. I feel like if there should be criticism it should be directed to these aspects, not because the man didn't give a freaking speech.

1 hour ago, Lilllabettt said:

I'm happy to do my part but are you? 

What do have in mind?

[Aloysius]

One of the things that has made the abuse crisis so bad has been the intersection of theological and eecclesiological disputes with the sense of plausibility authorities have given to accusations.  It's a big problem because false accusations DO happen, and human bias is hard to overcome.  JPII was a bad administrator especially in the end (one reason Benedict believed in resignation before getting old), and had a bias towards disbelieving accusations (having been conditioned most of his life to disbelieve soviet communist anti-religious propaganda).  Benedict was a bad administrator because as much as people thought of him as "God's Rotweiller" in the JPII era, he didn't actually have the aggressiveness or savvy needed to maneuver in the bureaucracy --the fabled "my authority only extends to that door" quote, whether it's true or not, definitely characterizes the kind of administrator he was--making the Vigano suggestion of a non-public unofficial censure probable (and remember if this is true, it is still something Benedict can be criticized for--having not been hard enough in publicly condemning him)

  When Cardinal Wuerl tried to defend himself, for instance, he pointed to the moments he had been very harsh on priests that were accused, even going to the Vatican to fight to make sure they were defrocked.  Thing is--those were priests who would otherwise have been his opponents on those kind of ecclesiological/theological/liturgical matters; when priests who were more allied with his ideas were accused, he was less likely to believe the accusations, probably--to give him the benefit of the doubt--because human bias made him truly think they were false accusations; though the motivation to protect the image of the church and the image of his own position in these disputes was probably present also.

There's something like this going on with the big Francis, Vigano, Benedict, JPII, and McCarrick fiasco--it's something that runs right through the way the authorities themselves handled things, and the way the faithful are interpreting them.

It is unfortunate.  It cuts both ways--on who you are willing to grant the benefit of the doubt to, and who you are ready to throw under the bus with the slightest suspicion.  Be on guard, your own mind will convince you you have already removed such biases, pride lurks in the shadows.

Personally, this report doesn't really solve the question to me as to whether Benedict really did the non-public censure Vigano asserts, and whether Francis knew about it or not.  The public record still speaks for itself in terms of the increased prominence and publicity McCarrick enjoyed after Francis's ascendance compared to during the Benedict papacy--but again, that also intersects with the issues of them having different theological / ecclesiological outlooks.  Vigano claims they never reached out to interview him for the report, though the report says he didn't make himself available; either way I see no resolution of that particular aspect.  As much as the report can be praised for transparancy about past papacies, it seems a cloud of doubt remains on the present (which a cynic might assume is passing the buck to the past papacies, but I am not saying that for certain, just that unfortunately there remain other unrelated disputes clouding the way things are being handled around this issue)

[HumilityAndPatience]

23 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

So??? We found out that was a big mistake didn't we? You are making my point for me!

Sooo your disproportionate blame on PF is misplaced, is my point... Not enough questions are being asked of Vigano. This is the fundamental issue.