Press title for article!
In new interview, Pope Francis says he ‘knew nothing’ about McCarrick
Excerpt:
Pope Francis said that “about McCarrick I knew nothing, obviously, nothing, nothing.”“I said it many times, I knew nothing, no idea,” Francis said in an interview with Mexican journalist VNEW YORK - In his first direct comments about the case of former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, alentina Alazraki.
Speaking about the allegation made by Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, who claimed last August that he had told the pope about Vatican-imposed restrictions against the former Archbishop of Washington, Francis said that “I don’t remember if he told me about this. If it’s true or not. No idea! But you know that about McCarrick, I knew nothing. If not, I wouldn’t have remained quiet, right?”
11 comments:
I don't get it. He denies knowing about Mccarrick, but won't deny being informed about Mccarrick? Is this some sort of jesuitical sophistry or is it a sign of dementia or perhaps both?
I'm sorry, but I find this answer, as relayed by the interviewer and publisher, to be hard to believe.
Indeed it is very fishy and disconcerting that the pope answers this way and then throws in gossip about other, true or not. It is very curious and quite sad to be honest with you. But this too shall pass.
I guess Sgt Schultz was a Bishop. “I know nuthink!!!” Should be part of the episcopal ordination rite, if it isn’t already. I’ve never seen such a group of people collectively and willfully ignorant about what’s going on. How are they supposed to protect their sheep if the eyes and ears are closed?
Father McDonald said..."But this too shall pass."
That is the best comment, as well as attitude to take, in regard to the saga in question.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Bee here:
All I could think of was Sargent Schultz in "Hogan's Heroes."
God bless.
Bee
Archbishop Vigano has responded to the pope's recent statement.
"In comments to LifeSite today, Archbishop Viganò said: 'What the Pope said about not knowing anything is a lie. [...] He pretends not to remember what I told him about McCarrick, and he pretends that it wasn’t him who asked me about McCarrick in the first place.'”
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exclusive-abp-vigano-says-pope-is-lying-in-latest-denial-about-mccarrick
In same interview:
“Before I asked for his resignation, there was an accusation, and I immediately made him come over with the person who accused him and explain it,” Pope Francis said. The accusation involved the Bishop’s phone, which contained homosexual pornography, and explicit sexual images of the Bishop in his bedroom.
“The defense is that he had his phone hacked, and he made a good defense,” Pope Francis said, adding that it created enough doubt, so Francis told Bishop Zanchetta to go back."
Article is reminding readers that phone contained nude SELFIES.
So does Francis believe that hackers can place nude photos of phone owners onto phone without the owners knowing, or does he just think that we are stupid and will fall for whatever he says?
Bee, You beat me to it
he just think that we are stupid and will fall for whatever he says?
yes and the liberals demand that we do, NO QUESTIONS, he is a holy man and totally humble and really cares and all that tripe
But Benedict, he was an EVIL conservative
This reminded me of Kurt Vonnegut’s ‘Slaughterhouse Five”. Taking the entire article together, and assuming that it accurately portrays what was said, I can see where Pope Francis was speaking of several different points in time without context of those moments to each other or as related to the total saga. This is consistent with Peronism by giving each audience a limited view by omitting what is uncomfortable. The theory seems to be that if actions are parsed finely enough then the individual actions will seem reasonable even though the sum of the actions is monstrous. While counseling a person in distress this can serve to help them save hope and, by replacing some of the actions and connecting them to the outcome achieve a better outcome. However, there is a risk of simply trying to prove that the sum of the parts must come to good by ignoring the actual tally.
Post a Comment