Sign in to follow this  
Traveler

Is the Pope in trouble

Recommended Posts

@anatess2, most likely, has one of the best insights on our forum into current problems - The Washington Post; not the best source of anything, is reporting that a high ranking Cardinal is calling for the Pope's resignation because the Pope allegedly knew of sex abuses for years and was part of the silent cover up.  I do not like speculation in such matters - but I believe this could hurt Christianity in the greater landscape of public opinion as much as or perhaps more so than the separation between much of Traditional Christian doctrine and Science.  

Many of the agnostics and atheists I know are difficult to engage in religious centered discussion just because they are "fed" up with religion as a whole.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm back, I just read some. Well... that would be wonderful if he could resign.  It would probably break some followers' heart. but he was an accomplice to those evil acts then he's as guilty as those evil men.  right?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of Pope Francis.  I was very disappointed when Pope Benedict ceded to the globalists pressure and resigned.  Benedict was the Pope when McCarrick went through his Canon Law process.  Nobody is saying about what happened to that process when Benedict stepped down and Francis took over.  But, of course, Francis would know about all investigations and the reconciliatory process for the Priesthood, so Vigano is correct about that.  The questionable claim is that Francis "covered up" the crime.  As I have explained in previous threads, Canon Law process is not about "covering up the crime".  Especially after Pope John Paul II modified the law to balance with secular law.

In my estimation, Vigano - who was a supporter of the traditionalist Benedict, and not a fan of the progressive Francis - is making some political maneuver to restore traditionalism in the Catholic Church.   If I am correct on this estimation, Vigano will have a difficult time gaining support as there was a reason Benedict was compelled to resign in the first place.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Chilean said:

I'm back, I just read some. Well... that would be wonderful if he could resign.  It would probably break some followers' heart. but he was an accomplice to those evil acts then he's as guilty as those evil men.  right?

 

This would be like saying the NRA is an accomplice to <insert school shooting here>.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, nobody is accusing the Pope of inaction while he knew of active molesters are out there molesting, right?

I'm guessing (someone correct me if I'm wrong), the resignation call was just that the pope knew about the latest round of crap, but did not call for action.  And the latest round of crap isn't about active molesters out there molesting, it's about knowing how bad it was in the past, and how bad it used to be handled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This would be like saying the NRA is an accomplice to <insert school shooting here>.

Ok, I shouldn't have said "Accomplice".

He failed to report a crime, he concealed the crime. He, or anyone, could be charged with accessory after the fact, if he wasn't actually present during the commission of a crime, but took actions to conceal the crime or help the perpetrators avoid capture.

So yes, he is guilty of a crime.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Chilean said:

Ok, I shouldn't have said "Accomplice".

He failed to report a crime, he concealed the crime. He, or anyone, could be charged with accessory after the fact, if he wasn't actually present during the commission of a crime, but took actions to conceal the crime or help the perpetrators avoid capture.

So yes, he is guilty of a crime.

 

I've explained it before in a different thread.  Canon Law.  The Pope is not an American citizen.  He is not subject to the US Constitution.  He is a citizen of the Vatican like all priests are (although a citizenship not recognized in the USA for American citizen priests as the US does not recognize dual citizenship).  Canon Law is what the Pope follows.  Canon Law has a specific process for offenses of people taking the vow of Holy Orders.  It has some incompatibility with the American justice system but as the Pope is not an American he is not judged according to American Law.

And this is what's frustrating for a lot of us non-Americans.  A lot of Americans have no concept of national sovereignty.  Like, in the US, vandalism doesn't earn you a lifetime of jail sentence where you end up comatose... well they do in North Korea.  So don't be stupid in North Korea.  And in the Vatican, the Church has progressed such that crimes are dealt with in such a way that the salvation of the soul is the priority and not the "burning of the witches".  So yeah, the Pope deals with sexual predators differently than the American Justice System.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I've explained it before in a different thread.  Canon Law.  The Pope is not an American citizen.  He is not subject to the US Constitution.  He is a citizen of the Vatican like all priests are (although a citizenship not recognized in the USA for American citizen priests as the US does not recognize dual citizenship).  Canon Law is what the Pope follows.  Canon Law has a specific process for offenses of people taking the vow of Holy Orders.  It has some incompatibility with the American justice system but as the Pope is not an American he is not judged according to American Law.

And this is what's frustrating for a lot of us non-Americans.  A lot of Americans have no concept of national sovereignty.  Like, "in the US, vandalism doesn't earn you a lifetime of jail sentence where you end up comatose"... well they do in North Korea.  So don't be stupid in North Korea.

Ohhhh! Got it!!  So we're just judging based on American justice. 

Is there anything in the Cannon Law about the issue going on right now? How would they go about judging people? Do they actually consider those crimes (and covering up) actual crimes ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Chilean said:

Ohhhh! Got it!!  So we're just judging based on American justice. 

Is there anything in the Cannon Law about the issue going on right now? How would they go about judging people? Do they actually consider those crimes (and covering up) actual crimes ?

Here you go:

 

What y'all call "covering up" is the Canon Law process of seclusion (pretty much the same as putting the guy in jail except jail is not just a holding cell... seclusion is where the priest goes through the reconciliation process to save his soul while being prevented from having access to the public).  In the Philippines, the law recognizes monasteries as qualified institutions to conduct a house arrest for criminal priests while remaining under the jurisdiction of the Philippine justice system.  No such thing exists in US Law.  Therefore, they call it "hiding the priest".

The Catholic Church doesn't call them "crimes" rather they call them "sin".  Crimes are secular judgments.  Lying to your mother may not be a crime, but it is a sin and would have Canon Law consequences (may need to confess to the priest and get absolution).  Sexual predation is a mortal sin - that is, the consequence of which is eternal burning in the fires of hell, especially for somebody that has made the covenant to God to minister to his flock.  It is, therefore, the primary objective of the Catholic Church to save that man's soul as well as the soul of the victims.

Remember, the Catholic Church is not just a religious institution.  It is also a system of government.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer it when Catholic popes espouse traditional and conservative values: pro-life, pro-liberty, pro-responsibility, and pro-morality. It's disappointing when they lean progressive, contending for socialism-sounding policies, opposing the death penalty, and promoting more national and international government control to check climate change. HOWEVER, I agree with @Traveler that in today's political environment, successful attacks by media and secular society upon Catholic hierarchy will become a broad brush against all Christians. I well imagine that the Chinese government is already using the scandal as an excuse for its current resurrection of anti-church policies (demolishing churches, removing crosses, and recriminalizing the underground church).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

So, nobody is accusing the Pope of inaction while he knew of active molesters are out there molesting, right?

I'm guessing (someone correct me if I'm wrong), the resignation call was just that the pope knew about the latest round of crap, but did not call for action.  And the latest round of crap isn't about active molesters out there molesting, it's about knowing how bad it was in the past, and how bad it used to be handled.

Archbishop Vigano... used to be the US Apostolic Nuncio to Pope Benedict.  He called for Pope Francis' resignation for his inaction in the case of McCarrick.  He did not say that Pope Francis is not dealing with sexual predators.  He is just saying he didn't do right by McCarrick.  McCarrick is a hold over from Benedict - Benedict was the Pope when he went through the Church's process for dealing with sexual predators after Vigano notified him of McCarrick's sins.  Benedict resigned while the process was still going on.  Pope Francis took over and Vigano is claiming that Francis ignored the case or did not do anything about the case even as Benedict handed the case over to him.

Now, a change to the Canon Law made when John Paul II was the Pope (around 2002, I believe) was that the Catholic Church will work with the law of the land in the process of saving a man's soul.  So, Vigano is saying it is Pope Francis' obligation to make sure the US authorities are notified of McCarrick's crimes after the investigation was completed.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I prefer it when Catholic popes espouse traditional and conservative values: pro-life, pro-liberty, pro-responsibility, and pro-morality. It's disappointing when they lean progressive, contending for socialism-sounding policies, opposing the death penalty, and promoting more national and international government control to check climate change. HOWEVER, I agree with @Traveler that in today's political environment, successful attacks by media and secular society upon Catholic hierarchy will become a broad brush against all Christians. I well imagine that the Chinese government is already using the scandal as an excuse for its current resurrection of anti-church policies (demolishing churches, removing crosses, and recriminalizing the underground church).

And this is why I was disappointed when they called Pope Francis.  Opposing the death penalty is fine - this is bedrock Catholic belief - death penalty causes the immediate cessation of a chance for repentance.  But yeah, climate change?  Socialism?  It is obvious why Benedict was made to resign.  A ready-made global institution promoting globalist political agendas... they made the Pope a pawn.  Or a puppet.  And it's very easy with this Pope.  Not so much with Benedict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I'm not a fan of Pope Francis.  I was very disappointed when Pope Benedict ceded to the globalists pressure and resigned.  Benedict was the Pope when McCarrick went through his Canon Law process.  Nobody is saying about what happened to that process when Benedict stepped down and Francis took over.  But, of course, Francis would know about all investigations and the reconciliatory process for the Priesthood, so Vigano is correct about that.  The questionable claim is that Francis "covered up" the crime.  As I have explained in previous threads, Canon Law process is not about "covering up the crime".  Especially after Pope John Paul II modified the law to balance with secular law.

In my estimation, Vigano - who was a supporter of the traditionalist Benedict, and not a fan of the progressive Francis - is making some political maneuver to restore traditionalism in the Catholic Church.   If I am correct on this estimation, Vigano will have a difficult time gaining support as there was a reason Benedict was compelled to resign in the first place.

So do you believe there have not been any cover ups? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, carlimac said:

So do you believe there have not been any cover ups? 

Anatess can speak for herself but no that is not what she is saying.

Our D&C 121 talks about the danger of power.  There is no reason to think that Catholic's are immune.  However such a cover-up (in the very real sense) is contrary to Cannon Law.

However following cannon law is not a cover-up but rather the Catholic Church claiming jurisdiction over the crime. (At least that is how it appears to this outsider)

I do not see much difference between a convicted priest sitting in a concrete cell for most of the rest of his days and siting a stone monastery room for the most of the rest of his days.   It is just a matter of who did the investigation, judging and convicting.  The Local Government or the Catholic church?  Both can have bad actors in their ranks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, carlimac said:

So do you believe there have not been any cover ups? 

Your definition of "cover up" is not surrendering the priest to secular authorities.  I already explained to you the Canon Law procedure on this.  My definition of "cover up" is covering up crimes/sin and pretend it didn't happen - a nefarious act - usually done to keep up pretenses for image purposes.  No, I do not believe in any way shape or form that the Catholic Church is in the nefarious practice of covering up crimes/sin in the same way that the LDS Church is not in that same nefarious practice regardless of what people say about Joseph Bishop.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Anatess can speak for herself but no that is not what she is saying.

Our D&C 121 talks about the danger of power.  There is no reason to think that Catholic's are immune.  However such a cover-up (in the very real sense) is contrary to Cannon Law.

However following cannon law is not a cover-up but rather the Catholic Church claiming jurisdiction over the crime. (At least that is how it appears to this outsider)

I do not see much difference between a convicted priest sitting in a concrete cell for most of the rest of his days and siting a stone monastery room for the most of the rest of his days.   It is just a matter of who did the investigation, judging and convicting.  The Local Government or the Catholic church?  Both can have bad actors in their ranks. 

Thank you @estradling75.  It's nice to know my communication skills is not absolutely horrendous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, anatess2 said:

Thank you @estradling75.  It's nice to know my communication skills is not absolutely horrendous.

No, your skills is not horrendous. Your skills is good. 😉

I simply want to know if you believe that no priest has ever defied Canon Law by either ignoring the "sin" or simply moving the accused to another location where his past isn't exactly known but where he still interacts with children.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, carlimac said:

No, your skills is not horrendous. Your skills is good. 😉

I simply want to know if you believe that no priest has ever defied Canon Law by either ignoring the "sin" or simply moving the accused to another location where his past isn't exactly known but where he still interacts with children.  

I can't speak for sins committed by sinners when I'm not in the room or have no intimate knowledge of the case.   But moving the accused to another location is EXACTLY what Canon Law prescribes.  Having the sinner moved (you can't just move a priest without filing a request and giving a reason) AND given access to children when the move was done BECAUSE of sins committed against children is a serious accusation.  This is an accusation that not only did the priest commit a grievous sin, the Church hierarchy itself APPROVES of the commission and wants it to go on.  It would be something like a case of a pedophile ring entrenched within the Church.  Yes, there are a lot of conspiracy theories out there about pedophile rings not only in Hollywood but also in institutions like the US political class (pizzagate) and the Catholic Church.  I'll believe it of Hollywood, I reject the claim about the Catholic Church.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I can't speak for sins committed by sinners when I'm not in the room or have no intimate knowledge of the case.   But moving the accused to another location is EXACTLY what Canon Law prescribes.  Having the sinner moved (you can't just move a priest without filing a request and giving a reason) AND given access to children when the move was done BECAUSE of sins committed against children is a serious accusation.  This is an accusation that not only did the priest commit a grievous sin, the Church hierarchy itself APPROVES of the commission and wants it to go on.  It would be something like a case of a pedophile ring entrenched within the Church.  Yes, there are a lot of conspiracy theories out there about pedophile rings not only in Hollywood but also in institutions like the US political class (pizzagate) and the Catholic Church.  I'll believe it of Hollywood, I reject the claim about the Catholic Church.

Ok. That's what I wanted to know. I just wonder why you reject the claims when reports in the media (the Big Bad media)  and from countless people within the church including priests themselves claim there have been cover ups. 

I'm only interested in this because I'm a big proponent of truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, carlimac said:

Ok. That's what I wanted to know. I just wonder why you reject the claims when reports in the media (the Big Bad media)  and from countless people within the church including priests themselves claim there have been cover ups. 

I'm only interested in this because I'm a big proponent of truth.

Like I said - depends on what they mean when they say "cover up".  A priest claiming that the crime did not get reported to secular authorities and the priest got moved so it is a cover-up...  The priest would know it is not.   So, it reeks of a political agenda or an attempt to take the institution down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, carlimac said:

Ok. That's what I wanted to know. I just wonder why you reject the claims when reports in the media (the Big Bad media)  and from countless people within the church including priests themselves claim there have been cover ups. 

I'm only interested in this because I'm a big proponent of truth.

Again define Cover-up...  The Catholic Church claiming jurisdiction and executing the Investigation, Judgement and Punishment is not a cover-up. However many countries (including the USA) do not recognize the Catholic Church's claims to jurisdiction.  So when such jurisdictional conflicts come up (and they do).  The Local authorities could very well claim that the Catholic Church is being uncooperative, stonewalling, and yes even covering it up, as part of the jurisdictional fight.

Just watch any police procedural show where the cops think the bad guy is a diplomat, working out of an embassy... and you will see the additional layers of complications this has. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Like I said - depends on what they mean when they say "cover up".  A priest claiming that the crime did not get reported to secular authorities and the priest got moved so it is a cover-up...  The priest would know it is not.   So, it reeks of a political agenda or an attempt to take the institution down.

Hoo boy!! Ok well if that's what you believe I'll leave you to it. But there are books, videos, documents, etc., so easy to find, claiming  real live attempts to cover the crimes. And these have come from within the church. 

Do I believe our own church has done this in the past. Yep! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, carlimac said:

Hoo boy!! Ok well if that's what you believe I'll leave you to it. But there are books, videos, documents, etc., so easy to find, claiming  real live attempts to cover the crimes. And these have come from within the church. 

Do I believe our own church has done this in the past. Yep! 

Okay, then we are speaking past each other.  When you say "OUR OWN CHURCH"... that is a completely different matter than saying "individuals who are members of the church".  If you believe the LDS Church covers up crime I don't know why you're still a member of said Church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, carlimac said:

Hoo boy!! Ok well if that's what you believe I'll leave you to it. But there are books, videos, documents, etc., so easy to find, claiming  real live attempts to cover the crimes. And these have come from within the church. 

Do I believe our own church has done this in the past. Yep! 

Where are you getting that she believes it never happened?  She has simply pointed out that before you can truly claim "cover-up" you have to show that it was not following Cannon Law.  Catholic priests following Cannon Law is not a cover-up, even if it looks that way to outsiders who do not understand.  Catholic priest avoiding/not following Cannon Law while using its functions to evade secular law most definitely would be.

And since we believe in "Innocent until Proven Guilty"  all those claims of cover up  you cite need to be run through their respective legal systems to be dealt with.  Not dealt with by angry mobs with torches and pitch forks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this