Blog Song

Saturday, September 1, 2018

Archbishop Vigano's Response

Pope Francis told reporters to search for the truth.  As you already know in my last post, many news media did just that.  Many photos and video clippings of McCarrick with Archbishop Vigano and Pope Benedict XVI were compiled.  These photos and video clippings brought doubt to the Archbishop's letter.  Some news reporters finally caught up with Archbishop Vigano and questioned him about the photos and video clippings.  He gave a response to Life Site news, which is found here.

These are the problems with Archbishop Vigano's response and it only brings more questions and even doubts. 

1.  Archbishop Vigano stated that the reason no one can find any documents on the sanction was because the sanctions were "private".  Here is the problem with this response:  If it was "private", then how did Vigano come to know about it? The only sanctions on McCarrick known to the entire world was on June 20, 2018.  These sanctions were placed by Pope Francis. Furthermore, Vigano said something to the reporters when they questioned him about the video clipping of him with McCarrick.  Vigano was quoted by Life Site news:
“I could not say, “What are you doing here?” he said. “Can you imagine? Nobody knows (about the sanctions), it was a private meeting (when they were levied by Benedict). So this video didn’t prove anything.”
Exactly, my point.  Vigano admitted that nobody knew about the sanctions because the sanctions were given by the pope in a "private" meeting with Cardinal McCarrick.  So, how did he (Vigano) know about this "private" sanction given in a "private" meeting between McCarrick and the Pope?  Was he in that "private" meeting?  I do not think the reporters caught that statement from Vigano at that moment otherwise they would have asked him how he came to know about a "private" sanction made in a "private" meeting. 

2.  His reason for not saying anything while participating in the ceremony with Cardinal McCarrick was because a) nobody knew about the "private" sanctions and b) as a nuncio, he felt he was not in a position to enforce the sanctions by telling McCarrick that he should not be there.  According to the article: 
 Viganó reiterated in the interview that he had spoken with McCarrick about the restrictions Benedict had put upon him, but that as nuncio he did not have authority to enforce those restrictions. 
“I was not in the position of enforcing,” Viganó told LifeSiteNews, “especially because the measures (sanctions) given to McCarrick (were made) in a private way. That was the decision of Pope Benedict.”   
So, what is wrong with this picture?  Or should I say what is wrong with his statement?  He spoke with McCarrick about "private" restrictions which the Pope placed on him in a "private" meeting and then claimed that he was in no position of enforcing sanctions that were given to McCarrick in a "private" way. Exactly, how "private" were these restrictions that he had information to?  

3.  Regarding all the photos and video clippings of McCarrick that were compiled, the only excuse that Archbishop Vigano gave was that Cardinal McCarrick disobeyed the "private" sanctions.  Nevertheless, there are also news clippings and video clips of Cardinal McCarrick praising Pope Benedict and claiming obedience to him.   According to news report: 
“Pope Benedict is a wonderful man, and was a good friend of mine before he became pope,” McCarrick said. “But he was anxious to bring the church back to where he thought it should be, and I guess I wasn’t one of those who he thought would help him on that. I would have obviously done what he asked.” 
Regarding what Pope Francis said about the letter, BBC reports:
He said he would not say a single word in response to the 11-page letter from Archbishop Vigano. 
"I will say sincerely that I must say this, to you," he said, when asked by a journalist about the letter, "and all of you who are interested: Read the document carefully and judge it for yourselves.
"I will not say one word on this. I think the statement speaks for itself.".........
"You have sufficient journalistic capacity to draw conclusions," Pope Francis told the reporters on board his plane. 
"When a little time has passed and you have the conclusions, perhaps I will talk," he added.  

22 comments:

  1. My political view is conservative. I am mainly a conservative. As I see it, it is now radical conservatives who are making these allegations. However, I still stand by the Pope.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In my opinion, I think Vigano was one of the bishops who knew of McCarrick's sexual exploits and turned a blind eye on it. Some news report are claiming that Vigano has personal vendetta against the Pope and out for revenge. The conservatives are supporting Vigano because they branded the pope a liberal who is out to destroy the church. These allegations are an attempt to undermine the pope and probably even get the people to rise against him. I'm also standing firmly with Pope Francis.

      Delete
    2. In a court, the burden of proof would be on the accuser. The burden of proof is on Vigano. His letter and response doesn't have any evidence and documents to back up his claim while the pictures and videos are documents supporting the Pope's innocence of the allegation.

      Delete
    3. Diana, I don't really care or understand much of politics. Political conservatives or liberals, right-wing or left-wing is not my concern. My concern is traditional family values inside my Catholic Church! LGBT is not family value at all! They are about free, unlimited sex out of holy matrimony. They are sinners! Politicians are those who do politics. Some say they are conservatives but support a loosening of traditional church values. Others stand up for traditional families but are politically more liberal. Or vice versa. You have all possible different variations. Nevertheless, most conservatives in the mainland are Protestants who don't respect the Catholic Church.

      We as Catholics should care about Catholic family values inside our own church! I am for traditional family values which is not exactly the same as conservative politics. Politics is a completely different, often alien realm. I am refusing LGBT and surely think there is no place of LGBT people in Catholic clergy. Especially not among priests, bishops and cardinals! I feel a lot of anguish when reading of an LGBT mafia among cardinals who are only the tip of the iceberg. They are operating a whole army of lower rank gay bishops, priests and lesbian nuns who should not be in the Catholic church hierarchy at the first place. The LGBT mafia by its bare existence is a perversion of Catholicism.

      Read this from the same web-site you quoted from: “Evil” homosexual bishops set out to “punish, humiliate and blackmail” decent, God-fearing priests if these threaten to blow the whistle on the gay “mafia” within the Roman Catholic church, says a parish priest. Father Edwin Palka does not mince words about the terrible extent of the damage done by what he calls the gay “Lavender Mafia” within the church. “Many people still don’t understand just how evil the active homosexual or homosexual activist … priests and bishops are,” writes the pastor of that Tampa, Florida parish.

      “Not understanding the extent of their depravity and wrongly thinking that they are simply ‘normal’ men who just struggle with their sexual desires and sometimes might fail to remain chaste but are really, truly repentant when it happens and strive to ‘confess my sins, do penance and amend my life, amen’, they cannot possibly grasp the hellish depths to which … [homosexual activist] … clergy will go to persecute, lambaste, punish, humiliate and blackmail anyone who stands in their way or threatens their way of life,” writes Palka.

      https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/priest-evil-gay-bishops-persecute-blackmail-faithful-priests-who-might-expo

      Pope Francis stood up against Cardinal McCarrick and his LGBT mafia. This people have too much power in the higher echelon of Catholic circles. Pope Francis trimmed their dubious network of influence. He did the exactly same thing as Pope Benedict did by imposing restrictive sanctions. This agreement on sanctions by the two popes is an evidence that Pope Francis also did the right thing in restricting Cardinal McCarrick!

      Pray that our family values are never compromised by dubious values and shady practices of LGBT people inside our one Holy Catholic Mother Church.

      Delete
    4. Dear Faithfully yours,

      I agree with Pope Francis that gays should not be enrolled into Catholic seminaries. Pope Francis has never condoned same sex marriage. He never said homosexuality was okay. The conservatives, however, got upset when Pope Francis said that it is a possibility for a homosexual to be in heaven, and who is he to judge. That is one of the issues they have with him. Personally, as a conservative, I have no problems with that statement. Why? Because nowhere is it ever taught in the Catholic Church that God's kingdom is reserved ONLY for heterosexuals. God never stipulated that one must be heterosexual in order to get to Heaven. God never made such stipulation because in Heaven, three will be no human marriage. If you read the life of St. Augustin, this guy had a lot of sexual exploits with women. He even lived with a woman outside of marriage. If a guy like that can get to Heaven........ so what is wrong with the Pope's statement?

      So far, I have never heard any of our Guam priests condone the act of homosexuality or performed same sex marriage in the church. The fact that Guam has already passed a law allowing same sex marriage could bring the Catholic Church into a lawsuit in the future. It is possible that two Catholic gay couples may want to be married in church, and may even file a lawsuit when the church denies their marriage. After all, look at what is happening in America. A bakery shop was sued in court because it refused to make a wedding cake with two gay couple figurines on top of the cake. Fortunately, the bakery shop won the case.

      It is not just the gay and liberal activists who are a problem. The conservatives who are currently attacking the Pope are also a problem. Both sides have an agenda. Both sides are only looking for themselves.

      We have the radical conservatives who act out of fear that Pope Francis is a liberal out to destroy the Catholic Church. These people have no trust in God, thinking that it is up to them (rather than God) who need to cleanse and rebuild the Church. The truth is....a person cannot rebuild God's church because it is a church already built by Christ. What has been built by Christ cannot be rebuilt by man. Man, however, can bring reforms to His Church, which is what St. Francis of Assisi had done. St. Francis of Assisi reformed the Church by living out the Gospel, which is what Pope Francis had been doing. The radical conservatives in the Church are like the Pharisees. The Pharisees needed to get rid of Jesus because they feel he was corrupting Judaism. Likewise, the radical conservatives believe they need to get rid of Pope Francis because they feel he is corrupting Catholicism and a danger to the Church. The Pharisees pointed out the Sabbath as an example. Jesus was not following the Sabbath law, which clearly stated that one must not do any work on the Sabbath Day. Jesus worked on the Sabbath by curing people and having his disciples picking fruits. Likewise, the radical conservatives point to certain issues they have with the pope such as washing the feet of women during Holy Thursday. The conservatives are like the Pharisees who see Jesus breaking the Sabbath law, which clearly stated that no work should be done on the Sabbath. The Pharisees cannot see the Spirit of the law. It takes a person of faith to see and act in the Spirit of the law.

      Delete
    5. And what did these Pharisees do to Jesus? They bore false witnesses against him. They set Jesus up with false allegations and had him crucified.

      Delete
    6. It was never about homosexuals and heterosexuals. It was about following God's will. Pope Francis said, that a homosexual who follows God's will....even he can get into Heaven. That is what the Pope said. The radical conservatives have an issue with this statement because in their eyes, they cannot distinguish between a homosexual and homosexuality.

      Delete
  2. Dear Diana, I don't understand what this disagreement is about. If both Pope Benedict and Pope Francis imposed the same sanctions on Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, as Archbishop Vigano says, then they both acted for the best interest of parishioners and the universal church. So what is wrong? I do not think anything is wrong here!

    The important fact is that the ringmaster of the LGBT mafia of high ranking Catholic clergy, who apparently was nobody else but Cardinal McCarrick, was severely restricted. Perhaps, it was a temporary penalty under Pope Benedict, but it is a permanent banishment now, under Pope Francis! The penalties are heavier now than before because of the more serious charges against the cardinal that have surfaced recently. Cardinal McCarrick even had the guts to live in a seminary together with seminarians preparing to be holy priests of the Catholic Mother Church! How depraved a LGBT cardinal has to be to go after seminary students?! The real problem is the LGBT mafia and Cardinal McCarrick who serve an evil agenda and lie for their master who was a big liar from the beginning!

    Everything else is really secondary as compared to the damages caused by the LGBT mafia in every Catholic parishes around the world. What Archbishop Vigano says is not even accusation, rather than praise for Pope Francis for having the courage to stand up for family values. Pope Francis is really my hero in this story, because he did what he spoke of and he spoke of what he did!

    Pray for unity among the brothers so that we may live in the peace of our Lord.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Faithfully yours,

      Based on the evidence gathered so far, Pope Benedict XVI never sanctioned Cardinal McCarrick. Only Pope Francis sanctioned him. I do not agree with what the liberal activists in the Church are doing, but I also do not agree with what the conservative activists are also doing. It does not make it right for conservatives to plant false allegations to bring about reforms. That is not how one should bring reforms. Martin Luther King Jr. did a far better job in bringing social reforms, and he did it without planting any false allegations.

      Delete
    2. Diana, do you think Pope Francis is liberal?

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 1:59 pm,

      No, he is not a liberal.

      Delete
  3. On a side note there are a couple of extreme protestant,PROTESTANT conservatives on the mainland that are using this situation an excuse to make the pope resign to make the church look bad.So don't think it's just catholic conservatives going against the pope.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Also I doubt there will be a lawsuit against the catholic church about same sex marriage in the future.On the mainland many homosexuals actually hate the catholic church and would rather not get married in it in the first place.However there are certain groups in Ireland that are trying to make "catholic gay couples" a thing and even protested outside of the World Meeting of Families recently.These groups aren't so nice themselves as they themselves have literally stated that they want the catholic teachings of marriage to be changed.Because they do not believe in them.They had some sort of their own conference afterwards and would not allow certain priests to enter and some of them were even PROUD of not allowing priests inside.These people preach that they don't want hate yet they do certain acts of hate themselves.They do not believe in love because love is selflessness.Sex is not love.That is why the church does not approve of homosexual marriage.A relationship based on sex is not love.This can sometimes apply to a heterosexual marriage if the two are simply infatuated with each other.People who are homosexual are not born homosexual.Homosexuality forms from what the person went through growing up.Being homosexual is not a trait.It's not a piece of you like your race.I'm sick of people thinking that being hetero or homo defines who you are.This isn't about equality because no one is born homosexual to begin with.Because I'm "homosexual" myself,and I do believe its just a form of lust.Because when I look at other women I think dirty but in all my life I have never been able to love a woman romantically.I do not enjoy looking at women like that,it's a lust that has grown in me because of my bad experiences with men.But when I think of a man,I'd like to grow close to one,fall in love,but its hard for me to because of my bad experiences.I have abstained from dating other women because I know that what I feel is just lust and I do not want to hurt myself or other women.I have met many other homosexuals that are homosexual with proof of it being that they had bad experiences with certain people while growing up.I know a man who is homosexual because he was orphaned and had to make money growing up being a gay prostitute.He had to do it to survive and he's not happy with himself.He hates being homosexual as whenever he did things with other men it did not make him happy.Lust did not make him happy.I knew another homosexual that would talk lustfully about women as a child but he also had an abusive father,which turned this boys lust towards women into lust towards men growing up.There are many lesbians that grew up having daddy issues or no dad at all and the list of examples just goes on and on.The point is,it's a form of lust,not love.That's why many homosexual and even heterosexual relationships end after a long time because the lust for the other person eventually dies.To me that's not a true marriage.Love is selflessness,not sex.Same sex marriage is not a valid marriage because it is based on SEX.But a regular marriage cannot be valid either if the two married out of lust.
    I could give less of a damn if people marry by the government as I see government marriage as a scam anyway(but that's a different topic).Even though I am "homosexual" myself I do not believe the catholic teachings of marriage should be changed because I believe they are the truth!
    I'm sharing this with you because many people do not realize these things.
    Being homosexual does not mean you are automatically going to hell however.It's the actions.Being in lust with someone of the same sex is just as bad as being in lust with someone of the opposite sex.Lust is the problem

    -a fellow catholic
    (Please pray for the lust in my heart btw)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Diana:

    Perhaps the "private" or "confidential" sanctions of Archbishop McCarrick were communicated to the Nuncio of the US at that time and that's how Archbishop Viganó knew of those "private" sanctions, private in the sense that only a few knew (it's his word vs. the word of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI (no response) vs. the words of Pope Francis (no response). Therefore, you are correct in saying that his satement can't be verified. This is not a matter of left-wing or right-wing church politics, but of the problem of sexual abuse which has occurred and may still be ongoing in some places within the Church. When we look at the overall problem of sexual abuse in the Church, mainly a homosexual sex abuse scandal, it makes one wonder: What exactly did the Holy See know or didn't know, did or didn't do?

    The silence of Pope Francis worries and angers many Catholics and non-Catholics. The media amplifies the negativity setting up the Church for another major problem that might/will follow after a certain period of time. Now, if these allegations were totally false, the Pope could've said so right from the start, but he didn't. I think the allegations prove there's a much deeper problem which has no simple explanation, nor a simple solution. Therefore, let us pray for Pope Francis and all the shepherds of the Church and all the People of God. I recall that Pope Francis once said something like that it is better that the bishops and/or priests argue with each other, rather than remain silent, because in arguing they are at least dialoguing with one another. As Pope St. Gregory the Great once said: "It is better that scandals arise than the truth be suppressed."

    Veni, Sancte Spiritus!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Matlock,

      In his interview with Life Site News, Archbishop Vigano admitted that the “private” sanctions were made in a “private”meeting with Pope Benedict. Pope Francis said to intently study Vigano’s letter and many people including the media are doing that. The conclusion that many of them are coming up with is this.....the letter had very little to do with sexual abuse or cover-up. It had more to do with a greed for power.

      Yes, Pope Francis is correct that it is good for priests and bishops to fight. We say the same thing in the NCW. If a community is fighting, then they are walking. But if they are not fighting, then they still have their masks on. Fighting is what humans do best, but it takes the Holy Spirit to bring reconciliation. God desires reconciliation more than fighting, but one cannot have reconciliation until they go through fighting. And it is through the fightings and dialogue that the truth is discovered.

      Pope Francis said to dig for the truth, and later he will speak. When he feels it is time to speak, then he will speak. For now, I see that Archbishop Vigano has provided no written document to back up his story. It is simply his word against the documented video recordings and photographs. Yes, I agree that we should pray for all the clergy and our Catholic Church.

      Delete
    2. A sanction on a cardinal or bishop is always made public so that disciplinary action can be taken in case he violates the sanction. Vigano is losing the argument.

      Delete
  6. Archbishop Viganó continues to defend himself by responding to his critics. You say he has no proof and in order to verify whether his allegations are true or false, those named in his letter and subsequent statements he has made need to speak. At the same time, the Holy See has the information to say if all these allegations are true or false. While the Pope is approaching the matter serenely, according to Cardinal Parolin, the Holy See is restless. I wonder why? Restless over "inaccurate"/"false" statements/allegations? I said it before and I'll say it again, the allegations point to a much deeper and bigger problem that will not be easy to address and resolve.

    I don't believe Archbishop Viganó set out on an all-of-a-sudden-attack on Pope Francis. Some bishops say this is a coordinated/concentrated attack on the Pope and that those orchestrating it have an agenda. I think not. The letter reflected that, indeed, there was sexual abuse, there was a cover-up, and with it includes an abuse of power in order to retain power and protect certain alliances within the Church at the highest levels.

    Having a substantial amount of knowledge of the situation in Guam, I came to the conclusion that there are two different stories of how things unfolded and led to where you are today: someone is lying or ommitting certain details. Likewise, in this situation of the Church in America and Rome, I arrive at the same conclusion: someone is lying or ommitting certain details. God is the best judge and He knows all!

    I will say this, Pope Francis has a vision of mercy and compassion. And if restrictions for any cleric were revoked, regardless of the offense, it was simply because of this: mercy and compassion. All are entitled to the merciful love of God and another chance to begin anew.

    Before us is a crisis and scandal. Prayer and accountability will help us sail through this storm. Let us focus on the Lord and reach out for his hand.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Matlock, what details are possibly omitted on Guam? Who is lying? What would be that lie? I have heard a lot of talk, but we know that talk is cheap. Actions speak much louder for themselves. What else do you wanna hear from America and Rome? Who is deceiving whom? Who is hiding anything? Transparency is prevailing and this is good. I see the LGBT lobby running after Cardinal McCarrick was sanctioned and this is the one single most important development.

      Delete
  7. Dear Faithfully yours:

    Unfortunately, I don't have the answer to your questions. They are simply my conclusions after assessing the two different situations. What we see in these cases is the story of the accuser versus the story of the accused. Without concrete evidence, how can you verify or disprove either story?

    Regarding the situation in Guam, you have the NCW narrative of events and the JW narrative of events. It was clear that the JW narrative made it seem that the NCW had some sinister agenda and brainwashing those in community. The many brothers I met, however, could think for themselves and made their own decisions in life as any normal person. But, certain accusations were made that only Archbishop Apuron could answer, which was done in his canonical trial. Now we are all awaiting the verdict of his appeal. Pope Francis mentioned that it's a very complicated case, but the evidence is clear, but he will not judge until he's been given the report. The JW took that statement and implied that Archbishop Apuron was guilty, but quite honestly, how can they make such an assertion? The evidence could be clear that Archbishop Apuron is not guilty.

    Likewise, Archbishop Viganò has made accusations, it's his word versus the words of those he has accused. He continues to defend himself by responding to his critics. Whether true or false, I stand with the US bishops who are calling for a thorough investigation.


    I prefer not to hear any of these things; it's sad and sickening to hear and read about it, but since it's been brought out into the light, it calls for a thorough investigation which concerns us all. As I said before, God is the best judge and He sees and knows all things. Therefore, we continue to pray.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Matlock, I don't know of a "narrative" from the NCW. The communities have a history of about 20 years on Guam. JW made accusations by producing victims and charges. JW does not acknowledge that Archbishop Apuron stood up against the LGBT lobby for family values. Some accusations against some priests might be credible and some cover-ups have been proven as in the Pennsylvania scandal. The bad news is that Philadelphia will follow the Guam model of lifting the statute of limitations, even though it have had ruinous impact on our island already! The problem is that one cannot tell the bad apples from the good ones. As Archbishop Byrnes admitted in the Umatuna: "Ideally, it would be the perpetrators themselves who would be brought to justice; but time and distance preclude it at this time." What else should we know?

      http://umatuna.org/news/featured/drive-out-evil-by-the-power-of-the-good/

      About the Vatican scandal I would refer to Pat Buchanan, who worked out a presidential agenda for a Catholic president of the U.S. back in 90-ties where he run three times as candidate for presidency. He says the scandal is about homosexuality in the Catholic Church. That is why I applaud the action of Pope Francis who banished Cardinal McCarrick for LGBT activity, even though some say he is his good friend. It is exemplary of virtue to banish someone for transgression even if he is one's good friend. In agreement with Pat Buchanan, I also would like to hear the whole truth without omission.

      I agree with you that Archbishop Vigano should be investigated. Both with and without his letter. Even the New York Times and the Washington Post cast doubt on his testimony probably because he changes the subject of pedophilia in Philadelphia to the LGBT lobby of the church. Both are valid concerns but changing the subject so abruptly is very suspect. The New York Times and Washington Post would like to keep the subject on the pedophilia scandal that fits their agenda better. Apart from that, I see that Pope Francis did the right thing in confirming Pope Benedict's sanctions on Cardinal McCarrick, a fact that Archbishop Vigano should acknowledge.

      At the end of the day, it is us the faithful who will get to pay the bill of high ranking transgressors of our church. We have to shoulder up the repayment for their sins. We have the right to say enough is enough! Pray for courage of the faithful to stop further corruption of our Christian values and virtues.

      Delete
    2. My dear Faithfully yours:

      The NCW, indeed, had their own version of events. Some things still need ti be verified. Anyway, it was clear that JW did all they could to oust Archbishop Apuron. Whether those accusations are true or false, only the accused and the accusers would know. Hence, as I keep repeating, God is the best judge and knows all.

      Pope Francis "banished" Archbishop McCarrick after the fact fresh allegations surfaced. And I'm not only advocating investigating Archbishop Viganò, but all those whom he has mentioned in his 11 page testimony and subsequent comments. The whole lot should be investigated. Period.

      I agree with you: enough is enough! Onward we go! Long live Christ the King!

      Delete
    3. Dear Matlock, I am glad we agree on the assessment of Pat Buchanan who is probably the one single most important Catholic public face in the mainland. What he says is what the Catholic Church should do in order to keep its political clout and appeal on the people.

      The investigation should not only be of what Archbishop Vigano says but also about why he says that. There are suspicions as the New York Times and the Washington Post wrote that he had motivation. He did not even acknowledge that both Pope Benedict and Pope Francis did the exact same thing by sanctioning Cardinal McCarrick! Vigano should know that restricting the LGBT lobby was crucial.

      I usually don't believe a word the New York Times or the Washington Post publishes. They have an agenda. As Diana told us those extreme liberal circles and pundits are responsible for implanting gay priests and nuns among the religious in seminaries, convents and the Catholic clergy. But now they repent and come to protect the Vicar of Christ, the head of the Holy Catholic Mother Church who is Pope Francis and this is good! How could this be bad?

      You question the timing. But in the realm of eternity, one day is the same as one thousand years! Don't worry about the time in the Kingdom of God. The important thing is that the LGBT scandal was handled by Pope Francis. Pray for him that he may stand the storm unharmed.

      Delete