Sunday, August 26, 2018

THREE NEWS OUTLETS, THREE HEADLINES; THREE TAKES

32 comments:

Woody said...

The Crux reporter said that 300,000 attended the Mass at Phoenix Park, while the Irish secular media have said it was less than 130,000, as tallied by the Gardai ( the police). So much for Crux’s reportage.

TJM said...

kavanaugh and MT,

This will depress you!

http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2018/08/assumption-2018-photopost-part-2.html#disqus_thread

Anonymous said...

Cdl. Burke responds:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-burke-responds-to-former-us-nuncios-explosive-letter-about-pope-fr

Michael A said...

Why not give a direct answer to the question about when he knew about McCarrick's behavior? Francis dodges a direct question like a not so skilled politician with something to hide.

Mark Thomas said...

Father McDonald-permitting, Father Matt Malone, S.J., President and Editor in Chief of America, noted the following via Twitter:

1. Some questions about the Abp Vigano testimony: He claims that Pope Benedict imposed sanctions on Cardinal McCarrick that were "similar" to what Pope Francis has now done.

2. Specifically, he wrote that Cardinal McCarrick was informed that he "was to leave the seminary where he was living, he was forbidden to celebrate [Mass] in public, to participate in public meetings, to give lectures, to travel."

3. He wrote that Pope Benedict took this action "in 2009 or 2010," though he "cannot be sure." Presuming that Pope Benedict did take this action, as Vigano describes it, how do we account for the following events, all of which occurred after 2010?

4. October 30, 2011: McCarrick preaches from the most prominent pulpit in the United States, at Saint Patrick’s Cathedral, for the anniversary of Maryknoll.

5. January 16, 2012: McCarrick joins American bishops for their audience with Pope Benedict during the Americans’ ad limina visit to the Vatican.

6. That Same Day: McCarrick concelebrates mass with Cardinal Wuerl and several others in the Vatican, at the tomb of Saint Peter:

7. April 16, 2012: McCarrick attends an audience with Pope Benedict for the U.S. Papal Foundation. They present Pope Benedict with a birthday cake. McCarrick, among others, sings Happy Birthday to Pope Benedict.

8. February 27, 2013: McCarrick attends the final general audience for Pope Benedict in Saint Peter's Square. He is seated in a prominent position, three chairs to the right of Cardinal Schonborn.

9. That Same Day: McCarrick joins other cardinals in bidding farewell to Pope Benedict. He is warmly greeted by the pope in this video, which is broadcast by EWTN:

10. May 10, 2013: Abp Vigano himself concelebrates a mass with Cardinal McCarrick and Cardinal Wuerl and several others just before the high profile Annual Cardinals’ Dinner in support of Catholic University.

11. In each of these events, Cardinal McCarrick did things that, according to Abp Vigano's testimony, he was forbidden to do by Pope Benedict: "celebrate [Mass] in public, participate in public meetings, give lectures, travel," etc.

12. Benedict XVI took part in several of those events. Abp Vigano took part in at least one. Pope Benedict's actions, then, do not appear to reflect those of a man who fully knew what McCarrick had done, or the serious penalties that the Pope himself had apparently assigned.

13. Presuming that all of that can be answered satisfactorily, another question: If Cardinal Bergoglio (now Pope Francis) observed all of the events listed above, would he not be justified in thinking that Cardinal McCarrick was not under sanctions of the kind Vigano describes?

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Dan said...

Mark Thomas, perhaps McCarrick was disobedient.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Dan and Mark, the secular term for clericalism is arrogance and when it is combined with a pathological personality you get abuse, sexual or otherwise. Clericalism and/or arrogance demands entitlement.. yes McCarrick did as he damn well pleased and more than likely gave the finger to Pope Benedict.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Mark, your unlucky #13 is the million dollar question. Pope Francis refuses to answer. This is clericalism or arrogance, both being the same thing. Clericalism is at the root of pathology’s current triumph which is pathology’s word that others call abuse and scandal.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Perhaps Mark, this Washington trip for Pope Benedict so disgusted him that it combined with so many other outrageous His Holiness experienced led to his beleaguered renunciation because he could not deal with it as McCarrick’s pathological arrogance/clericalism showed him in Washington. McCarrick is a deviant homosexual predator, con artist and a dangerous man.

Anonymous said...

Why would Francis know about McCarrick’s actions during Benedict’s trip to America? Francis was in Argentina and by all accounts not worried aboit the US. I live in America and care about both Benedict and the US and i didnt notice McCarricks presence.

Anonymous said...

“McCarrick is a deviant homosexual predator, con artist and a dangerous man.”
Indeed so, Father. The real problem for us is: How many other pathological slime-balls are there in the hierarchy?
Cdl. Burke: “The corruption and filth which have entered into the life of the Church must be purified at their roots.”

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Pope Benedict issued his orders to McCarrick after he retired but Benedict did so in secret to avoid scandal. That is very much Benedict’s fault. Pope Francis seems to have known about this “interdict” because he knew McCarrick. I suspect that Francis viewed it simply as consensual homosexual conduct thus normal for gay men forgivable. “Who am I to judge!” Mentality.

The caca, shit in English, only hit the fan once he was accused of homosexual predation of teenage boys, one his godson, which makes it spiritual incest. . Only then did Francis remove the red hat.

Mark Thomas said...

Father McDonald, His Holiness Pope Francis said that "when some time passes," he may speak about the situation hand.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

TJM said...

I thought liberals believed in transparency? My bad

Mark Thomas said...

Father McDonald said..."I suspect that Francis viewed it simply as consensual homosexual conduct thus normal for gay men forgivable. “Who am I to judge!” Mentality."

Father, please correct me if I have misinterpreted your above comment.

Pope Francis' "who am I to judge" comment was/is 100 percent Catholic. His Holiness made it clear that when a sinner turns to Jesus Christ, repents, reform's his (the sinner) life...then who am I to judge that person?

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

The Church has always judged sinners and sin and yes disciplined sinners with penance which is what Pope Benedict did to McCarrick in secret. Evidently Francis forgave him similar to the priest in Rome laicized by Benedict for child molestation, which Francis undid until the guy did it again!

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

MT, I was very much in your court in my defense of Pope Francis hoping the right wing of the Church was reactionary and mean spirited.

I am not mean spirited but I am praying now for the new pope who is out there and that he be elected soon. Yes, I am disillusioned by THIS pope, but not about the papacy or the Catholic Church.

I hate to write this, but your defense of this pope, once laudable, has grown thin on me and I may stop printing your comments.

Anonymous said...

Father, every blog Mark Thomas has ever visited and commented on has given up on him.

Anonymous said...

Vigano is guilty of covering up for Neinstedt, ordering evidence to be destroyed.

"But the evidence was compelling enough that in April 2014, Griffith, Piche, auxilliary bishop Andrew Cozzens and other archdiocese officials reviewed what had come in so far and agreed Nienstedt should resign, according to another 2014 memo from Griffith. Piche and Cozzens went to Washington to meet with Apostilic Nuncio Carlo Maria Vigano, the Vatican’s ambassador to the U.S. Nienstedt went with them.

But after meeting with the three men, Vigano ordered investigators to interview Nienstedt quickly, stop looking into new leads — there were still dozens to pursue — and “wrap up the investigation,” Griffith wrote.

Piche and Cozzens objected in a letter, saying “this would rightly be seen as a cover-up,” Griffith wrote. According to Griffith’s July memo, Vigano ordered them to take back the letter and destroy it."

https://www.twincities.com/2016/07/20/vatican-ambassador-sought-to-bury-nienstedt-misconduct-documents-say/

Henry said...

Anonymous,

So what? Vigano had Nienstedt removed and discredited. Would that everyone named in the Vigano testimony, from Francis to James Martin inclusive, get the same treatment.

TJM said...

Anonymous Kavanaugh,

Well Vigano said his conscience was bothering him so he decided to unburden himself. Better late than never.

Anonymous 2 said...

“Who am I to judge?”

Apparently all the Francis bashers on this Blog, before all the facts are in. I would have thought that the last post at 11:17 a.m. should give everyone pause. So should a bit of independent research on Vigano.

Marc said...

I love the "stop judging everyone" crowd like Anonymous 2. As is usual, one need only read on for his own judging to start (as he passes judgment on Abp. Vigano).

Of course, implicit in the "stop judging everyone" comment everytime it is trotted out is a judgment against all of those supposed judges whom he judges judge everyone too much for his judgment.

Dan said...

Even if Vigano committed the most heinous crimes imaginable, bringing up stories of his crimes, does not determine the truthfulness of the claims made in his testimony.

Why not focus on THOSE claims. That way you'll be making a more correct judgememt.

DJR said...

Anonymous said... "Vigano is guilty of covering up for Neinstedt, ordering evidence to be destroyed."

Archbishop Vigano has just publicly deconstructed this calumny and produced the evidence demonstrating his veracity.

DJR said...

Anonymous 2 said... "Apparently all the Francis bashers on this Blog, before all the facts are in. I would have thought that the last post at 11:17 a.m. should give everyone pause. So should a bit of independent research on Vigano."

In doing the research, it turns out that the calumny listed at 11:17 is blown out of the water, and Archbishop Vigano produced the documentation to verify his credibility. He covered up nothing.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vigano-issues-new-statement-documents-to-clear-his-name-of-false-charges

Anonymous 2 said...

Marc:

I passed no judgment on Archbishop Vigano. Nor did I say “Stop judging everyone.” As a member of the legal profession, you should know better. You know the difference between “Do not judge” and “Do not rush to judgment” (i.e., “before all the facts are in” – including all relevant facts about Archbishop Vigano) and you should agree with the latter admonition. It is a question of fundamental fairness. You do remember fairness, don’t you? What is it that blinds you to this and that causes you to misread my comment and indeed to misjudge me for it?

Marc said...

A2, I don't see how my profession is relevant. I am aware of the difference you mention. I'm also able to pick up on your hypocrisy as you call people with whom you disagree "Francis bashers" while implying that once one digs into the background of Abp. Vigano, one would find him to be less credible.

I don't think fairness has much relevance here. Apparently, you don't either, what with your "Francis bashers" remark and all...

Anonymous 2 said...

Marc:

Re “Francis bashers.” This is shorthand for all those on the Blog who so readily embrace any, and I mean any, criticism of Pope Francis as a result of “confirmation bias.” We are all subject to this type of bias but we need to be aware of it and guard against its influence as much as possible.

Thus, I am subject to such conformation bias against President Trump and therefore try to see the weaknesses in critical stories about him.

And this is something that we members of the legal profession are especially trained to so, which is yet another reason why all the right wing and Trump apologist attacks against the Mueller investigation and the Democratic leaning attorneys working for it are so misconceived. If anything, the investigators would lean in the opposite, pro-Trump direction to compensate. I know I would. And I think you know you would too. That is why your profession is relevant, Marc.

And I don’t think I am naïve in thinking this about good lawyers. It is something I don’t expect non-lawyers to understand. It is something I expect you to understand. Think about how you approach the credibility of adverse witnesses when defending a client. Or, better yet, think about how a judge views the matter.





Anonymous 2 said...

P.S. Sorry for the typos in the previous post. Also, by “adverse witnesses” I mean any witness (or indeed any evidence) adverse to your client’s position, not just those who are technically “adverse witnesses” called by you.

Marc said...

I appreciate your response, A2, and I see what you mean. I'm sure you would agree that there is no end to the influence of bias, though.

For example, are you not engaging in the same sort of bias when you assess others as Francis bashers based on your opinion that their conclusions are (at least partially) the result of confirmation bias?

Do you see the problem that I'm trying to point out?

At any rate, I am a critic of Francis. While you might think my criticism unfounded or the result of confirmation bias, I think it is objective and based on facts. Much as I'm sure you believe your criticism of Trump to be objective and based on facts.

In a comment to an article Fr. McDonald posted today about the HuffPost, I have set out a little more why I think the witnesses "against" Francis are more credible than those "against" Abp. Vigano.

Anonymous 2 said...

Marc:

You make a good and forceful point. I think the most we can ask of ourselves and of one another in conversations about such matters is to be aware of confirmation bias and other types of biases within us and to do our best to combat them. If we tell one another that we are doing this, and if we can trust ourselves to be sincere in such statements, we cannot ask for more. Does that sound right?