Opinion What Did Pope Francis Know?

[saveliberty]

Ross Douthat, New York Time

“During the Catholic Church’s synod on the family in Rome in 2015, a rough-and-tumble affair in which Pope Francis pushed the assembled bishops to liberalize Catholic teaching on remarriage and divorce, one of the attendees, by the pope’s own invitation, was the retired Belgian Cardinal Godfried Danneels. 

Danneels was a natural pick in one sense: One of the church’s prominent liberals, he had been part of a circle that supported Jorge Bergoglio in the run-up to his election as Francis, and in a synodal fight with conservative bishops, the pope needed all the allies he could get.

In another sense, though, Danneels was a wildly inappropriate choice, because at the conclusion of his career he was caught on tape trying to persuade a young victim of sex abuse not to go public with allegations against the victim’s uncle, Bishop Roger Vangheluwe of Bruges, Belgium. For Pope Francis, who talked a good game about disciplining bishops for covering up sex abuse, hauling a cover-up artist out of retirement for a synod on the family was a statement that ideological loyalties mattered more to him than personal misconduct: Sex abuse might be bad, but what really mattered was being on the correct side of the Catholic civil war.”

 

[Valin]

 

Many od the comments will (as always) make you want to take a shower or beat your head against the wall.

 

[saveliberty]

For something completely different, here is a recording of someone making himself look worse.

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/08/28/chicago-cardinal-cupich-pope-important-stuff-talk-sex-abuse-like-climate-change-immigration/

[Valin]

But at the same time evidence in favor of Viganò’s account is trickling out — including a claim of confirmation from people close to Benedict himself. And given the distracted and ineffectual way that the last pope ran the church, it’s very easy to imagine a distracted and ineffectual attempt to restrict McCarrick being subverted and ignored by the cardinal and his allies in the hierarchy.

In which case it’s also easy to imagine a scenario in which Francis didn’t technically “lift” those sanctions so much as acted in ignorance of them, or of their seriousness. He might have been given some knowledge, by Viganò and others, of the allegations against McCarrick but either assumed they couldn’t be that bad (at this point the cardinal mostly stood accused of imposing himself on seminarians, not teenage minors) or else chose to believe a denial from the accused cardinal himself. Why? In part because of perceived self-interest: Francis needed allies, McCarrick was sympathetic to the pope’s planned liberalizing push, and the pope wanted his help reshaping the ranks of American bishops.

In this scenario Francis would be guilty of self-deception and incuriosity but not as nakedly culpable as Viganò implies. And if it’s easy to imagine this scenario because of the Danneels example, it’s also easy to imagine because that’s how things have proceeded consistently in the church since the sex abuse scandals broke: If a given predator or enabler is “on side” for either conservatives or liberals, he will find defenders and protectors for as long as events and revelations permit.

That’s a major reason John Paul II refused to investigate Father Marcel Maciel, the wicked founder of the Legionaries of Christ — because the Legionaries were conservative, and apparently a great success, and that was all that mattered. It’s why many conservative Catholics unwisely defended John Paul II-appointed prelates like Boston's Bernard Law in the early 2000s. It’s why a notorious traditionalist priest, Father Carlos Urrutigoity, could find a welcome from conservative bishops in Pennsylvania and then Paraguay, despite a trail of abuse allegations.

[saveliberty]

4 minutes ago, Valin said:

 

Many od the comments will (as always) make you want to take a shower or beat your head against the wall.

 

It is the Washington Post. I am surprised that they even found some Catholics, even if they are beige ones (not knowledgeable about their faith). 

[saveliberty]

Right, I did see confusing statements as to whether Benedict Emeritus did confirm or not. I will have to find the link again.

[saveliberty]

Drat. I can’t find what I had read. 

[Valin]

 

[Valin]

19 minutes ago, saveliberty said:

It is the Washington Post. I am surprised that they even found some Catholics, even if they are beige ones (not knowledgeable about their faith). 

 

I am sad to say  

On a larger note, as so many on the right have said they live in a bubble. I do wonder when the topic of Religion comes up, how many of these people speak out strongly to defend their faith?

I know there have been times when the subject has come up at work and....Well You Know Me. Fools rush it...etc etc etc

[saveliberty]

14 minutes ago, Valin said:

 

I am sad to say  

On a larger note, as so many on the right have said they live in a bubble. I do wonder when the topic of Religion comes up, how many of these people speak out strongly to defend their faith?

I know there have been times when the subject has come up at work and....Well You Know Me. Fools rush it...etc etc etc

I am open about my faith, but as I am the only one on the team who is Catholic, topics don’t come up often.

I will say that when I went to visit the team I work with in India, they gave me a beautiful rosewood and silver Rosary.  In another setting, we were doing our monthly reporting to the big boss. We had not outages. He joked asking, what did you do, pray? I said yes.

Edited August 28, 2018 by saveliberty
Really, autocorrect misses a lot.

[Valin]

saveliberty

Thing is there are people out there that All they can talk about is Jesus! It's almost like they stopped being Real People. Now I know its not in the Gospels, but i'd make a large wager Jesus said things like "Its a little chilly today" or "Peter, what's for dinner?"