Translate

Wednesday, November 28, 2018

ANOTHER BOMBSHELL INTERVIEW WITH CARDINAL MULLER, WHEREIN I JUST TOTALLY AGREE WITH HIM

This is from The Vatican Insider:

Müller, “No one has the right to indict the Pope”

The cardinal, “The attacks hurt the credibility of the Church. I am convinced that Francis is doing everything possible against abuses. The American bishops should have sent the texts to Rome earlier” 







 At the end of August Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò published a dossier accusing the Pope of allegedly "covering up" for Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and going as far as to ask Francis to resign: what do you think?  

 "No one has the right to indict the Pope or ask him to resign! Clearly it is possible to have different opinions on the existing problems and on the ways to resolve them, but we must discuss them according to the roles of each and in the end, it is the cardinals, as representatives of the Church of Rome, who can help the Pope or ask the Pope for some explanations. But this must take place in private, in the proper places, and without ever making a public controversy with attacks that end up questioning the credibility of the Church and her mission. I am personally convinced that Pope Francis is doing everything possible to counter the phenomenon of child abuse and to foster a new spirituality for priests, who must act according to the heart of Christ and do the good of all people, especially children and young people".  
  
  Today even the terrible scandal of abuse is used for internal battles in the Church. Do you agree? 
 "We must all work together to overcome this crisis that is hurting the credibility of the Church. Unfortunately we have these groups, these "parties" - the so-called "progressives" and "conservatives". We are all united in the revealed faith, and not by the prejudices of political ideologies. We are not a political entity, the Church was instituted by Jesus Christ and is led by the bishops and especially by the Successor of Peter who is the permanent and fundamental principle of the unity of the Church in revealed truth and sacramental communion, in our being brothers and in trusting one another, as we read in the Council Constitution Lumen Gentium at number 18. I hope that the Pope may take some initiative for reconciliation. For example, to manage the crisis that followed the abuse scandal in the United States, he could appoint a commission of cardinals he trusts, to study the situation and then, on the basis of solid information, make some proposals, beyond oppositions, struggles between factions, mutual suspicions, and propaganda carried out by media campaigns. We need a solid base of information: only in this way decisions can be made for the future".  

There is no doubt that child abuse is a crime and an abominable sin. But don't you believe that there are - within the Church - those who trust too much in best practices and norms as a solution to the problem? Isn't there a risk of forgetting that the Church is not a company? 
"Canon Law is for us an instrument, a necessary aid to the Church, which like every society needs its rules. In Canon Law we have norms of divine law that we cannot change, but also norms of human, ecclesiastical law that we can change and update to better respond to the needs and circumstances to be faced. But, we, the Church, are a sacramental and spiritual reality and more important we are the dimensions of morality and faith: rules, norms, external discipline are not enough. We need spiritual renewal, prayer and penance, drawing on the grace of the sacraments, reading and meditating on the Bible, entering into the spirit of Jesus Christ. We must be priests according to the heart of Jesus, the heart of Jesus Christ on the cross, who suffered and died for the love of all sinners and every human being. The priest is an alter Christus, not because of his skill or ability, but because he gives his heart for humankind. We must bear witness to this and in so doing restore the credibility of the Church so that people may encounter faith".  
  
In the face of the scandals of abuse, Benedict XVI and Francis insisted on the path of conversion and prayer... 
 "It's the most authentic way. There are procedures that have been established to combat the phenomenon, but spiritual renewal and conversion are more important. There are priests who never go to spiritual exercises, never approach the confessional, never pray the breviary. And when the spiritual life is empty, how can a priest act according to Christ? He risks becoming a "mercenary", as we read in the Gospel of John".  
  
  The Holy See asking the American bishops to postpone the vote on the new anti-pedophilia norms  -which provided for the establishment of commissions of laity to investigate the responsibility of the bishops - has caused quite a stir. How do you judge what happened? 
 "According to the sacramental institution of the Church, the bishops have their responsibility, the Pope has his, but all must collaborate. We have sufficient norms in Canon Law, there is the motu proprio Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutelaof 2001, there are the already existing norms of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, yet not always all the bishops have collaborated with our department. They have not informed as it is ought to be done. First we must do what is already established and indicated as necessary and obligatory by the existing norms. And then one can collaborate, in a spirit of brotherhood and collegiality, and perhaps discuss whether the tone of the proposed text was adequate. They told me that the text arrived in Rome from the United States at the last moment: why was it not sent earlier? We must avoid confrontation and public controversy, and first discuss together to then arrive at a decision. We need to talk more before. I thought it was necessary for the presidency of the American Bishops' Conference to first consult with our experts at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Holy Father is a single person, he cannot deal with everything. That is why there are the departments of the Roman Curia, to collaborate and arrive at a well-developed proposal to bring to the Pope".  
  
  Today there are those who insist on saying that the problem of abuse is in reality linked to the problem of homosexuality of the clergy. What is your opinion on this issue? 
 "Pedophilia and homosexuality are expressions of psychology that help the Church in her moral theology. But for us, the dimension remains the moral one: that is whether we act according to the Commandments, according to the holy will of God, or not. This is the problem for us. We must collaborate with psychology and sociology, but we in the Church at the level of the Magisterium must not put these disciplines in the foreground. Instead we must base ourselves on moral theology. It is clear that according to God's will, it is not possible for the lay faithful to have sex outside of marriage, and for a priest - who has committed himself to celibacy - it is not possible to have sex. Nor is it possible for anyone to sexually abuse children or young people. Child abuse is an abominable sin that steals the souls of the children entrusted to our care, it is something diabolical! We must raise the moral level of the clergy. As for your question: we cannot speak of "homosexuals". There are no "homosexuals" as a category. There are concrete people who have certain tendencies, and there are temptations. Our hearts are wounded by the original sin and we must overcome temptations with grace, the new life in Jesus Christ. Always calling sin a sin and recognizing it as such, so as not to fall into the corruption of those who sin and self-justify themselves".  
  
  Pope Francis speaks of abuse of power and clericalism to indicate that before being sexual abuse, namely clerics' abuse of children (and vulnerable adults), it is an abuse by those who exercise authority over the victim. For this reason it can be said - for example - that McCarrick did not simply have homosexual relations with his seminarians, but abused them. 
 "I believe that the Pope would like to underline the fact that in the sexual abuse against children committed by priests there is always an abuse of the natural and spiritual authority of the priest. The clergy man is a representative of Jesus the Good Shepherd, children and young people trust him and he exercises paternity over them. Sexual abuse begins with an abuse of authority and conscience. This, I believe, is what the Holy Father meant. If one has a secularized heart, for him power, interest, luxury, money, pleasure become idols. The priest must not become worldly: our time, our being, is for the people, for the people of God.  
  
Pope Francis insists on warning against clericalism... 
 "I don't like this word because it's ambivalent, but as I said, here we mean the abuse of office powers by the priest. Who stops being a good shepherd according to the heart of Jesus and turns into a mercenary. These are the words of the Bible".  
  
Your Eminence, how do you judge the polarization and the emphasis with which certain groups and certain media exploit certain wrong appointments, perhaps with significant omissis depending on the group to which they belong? 
 "We have very clear examples in the Bible: Jesus himself called the twelve apostles and one of them was a traitor, Judas. Even today it is possible that the Pope may appoint a person who is "false", who is not suitable for the role, for the episcopate. Jesus Christ himself, even though he knew everything thanks to his divine intellect, left freedom to the traitor Judas. Everyone is then responsible for their sin: we can, through the process of selection with the Congregations, through all our human judgments, do everything possible to elect a good candidate. But the Pope is not responsible for what these bishops then do, as the bishops are not responsible for everything their priests do. Everyone is personally responsible for the evil they commit".  
  
  How, then, can the process of selecting bishops be improved? 
 "For us men it is not possible to formulate an absolute, perfect judgment: we do it according to our limited possibilities, according to what we are given to know. One must look for suitable candidates for the episcopate, but the Pope is not infallible in the nomination. And even in the future we will not be able to avoid errors altogether. We must learn from mistakes, try to make less and less of them, try to make the selection work better and better. But we are men, and as such we are sinners and fallible. We all need God's mercy and forgiveness, we must all recognize ourselves as sinners. We do not need those who stand as judges or avengers and consider themselves just. I am convinced that a significant step would be to promote greater collaboration between the various departments of the Roman Curia for the good of the Church. The individual departments all already refer to the Pope, but horizontal collaboration should be strengthened".  
  

29 comments:

TJM said...

With all due respect to his eminence, the Church has a homosexual problem in the clergy of which child abuse is a small part. Also, when is Santita going to answer the Dubia?

Handling things "privately" and behind closed doors is what landed the Church into the mess it finds itself today.

Color me skeptical and disappointed.

Rood Screen said...

He's a bureaucrat--a demoted bureaucrat--but a bureaucrat. As for celibacy, no heterosexual priest--who has given up a wife a children "for the Kingdom"--would reduce celibacy to merely "not having sex". Homosexuals can't understand celibacy because they don't desire a natural family of their own. As for homosexuality, it seems obvious to me that a man who craves teenage boys and adult men occupies a distinct class of disordered human being, and is not merely displaying a "tendency". Again, though no fault of their own, I don't think homosexuals can understand this.

Mark Thomas said...

Once again, "traditional" Catholic bloggers/Twitter folks have revealed their two-faced approach toward His Holiness Pope Francis.

Said folks have used Gerhard Cardinal Müller to their advantage via their attacks against the Vicar of Christ. That is, they have seized upon and spun interviews granted by Cardinal Müller to present the image that the Cardinal has opposed Pope Francis.

However, "traditionalists" are unable to spin Cardinal Müller's favorable comments about Pope Francis — "Pope Francis is doing everything possible to counter the phenomenon of child abuse and to foster a new spirituality for priests, who must act according to the heart of Christ and do the good of all people, especially children and young people".

That is why one "traditional" right-wing blogger after another has refused to publicize Cardinal Müller's positive assessment of Pope Francis.

Had Cardinal Müller said something negative about Pope Francis' handling of the so-called "abuse" crisis, then the Cardinal's remarks would, for days, remain the lead story on right-wing "traditional" Catholic blogs.

Deo gratias for Cardinal Müller. Once again, he has demonstrated his love and respect for the Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis.

Unlike certain "traditional" Catholics, Cardinal Müller doesn't spew hatred at Pope Francis.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Deo gratias that Cardinal Müller has called attention to the anti-Catholic manner in which Archbishop Viganò, as well as the Pope Francis-hating "V is for Viganò" crowd, have treated the Vicar of Christ.

That, of course, is why one leading "traditional" Catholic blogger after another has refused to call attention to Cardinal Müller's interview in question.

Cardinal Müller has confronted the defamation that Archbishop Viganò, who, with his right-wing, "traditional" Catholic, Pope Francis-hating bloggers/Twitter folks, have unleashed against Pope Francis.

Thanks be to God for Cardinal Müller. He has done that which each Catholic is called to do. That is, to defend Pope Francis against the Satan-inspired hatred and attacks that have been unleashed against His Holiness.

Actually, as Cardinal Müller indentifed, Satan's ultimate target in his attack against Pope Francis is Holy Mother Church.

Archbishop Viganò, as well as the "V is for Vigano" folks, have shaken their fists at and rebelled against Holy Mother Church.

May Cardinal Müller's powerful defense of Pope Francis, and ultimately, Holy Mother Church, spur Archbishop Viganò, as well as vicious anti-Pope Francis "V is for Vigano" folks, to
repudiate their attacks against Holy Mother Church and Her Pope.

Each Catholic must join Cardinal Müller to combat in spiritual fashion Satan's attacks against the Church and Her Pope.

As Catholics, we have the right to discuss in respectful fashion legitimate concerns in regard to the Church. But we are not permitted to spread lies and rebellion against Holy Mother Church and Her Pope.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Mark, Cardinal Mueller did not question the substance of many of the concerns of Archbishop Vigano, but he did question an Archbishop seeking to dismiss a pope, asking for a resignation. That was clearly wrong.

And yes, I do think that concerns Cardinals have with Pope Francis should be aired in a respectful way and not try to trump the pope as the Supreme Pontiff of the Church. There is a reason for the word "supreme."

The only one who can remove a bad pope is God pure and simple or the pope, if in sound mind, without coercion from either secular or religious entities decides to resign.

In the meantime, we rely upon the Holy Spirit who protects the Church from complete destruction from the fires of hell.

But I do think for anyone to say that one cannot voice a concern about the leadership of any pope, bishop, priest or deacon, that is is formed out of the clericalism that Pope Francis condemns.

The criticism, though, must be based upon the Deposit of Faith, which is not hidden and out in the open, there is no Gnosticism in the Catholic Church where only a privileged view know something that no one else knows. It must be based upon canon law also but even here the Pope is the Supreme legislator.

The greatest problem with those not comfortable with Pope Francis are their mortal sins against charity and yes unless they repent they will be held accountable by God.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

With that said, it would do well for Pope Francis to acknowledge what a lightening rod for polarization in the Church His Holiness has been. It is unprecedented in modern times.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

In other words, His Holiness has a penchant to enrage people, including cardinals who work closest with him and who should be his primary go-to for advice behind closed doors.

TJM said...

Father McDonald,

You may want to read this:

https://spectator.org/the-stench-from-cupichchurch/

Unfortunately, I am stuck with him but I don't give him any money any longer

Victor said...

Mr Thomas and Cdl Mueller both seem to ignore the damage these predators have caused the victims, something which Absp Vagano keeps raising again and again to deaf ears at the Vatican.
Yes, we are dealing with sins of priests against children, and as demonic as this is, secrecy has not worked out well to solve the problem as TJM above mentions, even making matters worse.
So a priest confesses his pedophile sins, and repents, only to have to confess them again and again, and this time sent elsewhere, only to have this recur again and again. In the meantime the victims, probably having turned against the Church with hostility, are being paid off with hard earned money from the church collection plates to keep them quiet. That is scandalous in this day and age.
The problem is the Vatican II church which has lowered her standards on sexual morality to conform to the modern world, and in doing so has increasingly become the international man-boy love club of our century so far:

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/unholy-activity-uncovered-at-holy-apostles-seminary?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+National+Catholic+Register#When%3A2018-11-29+14%3A17%3A01

Why is it so hard to strive for Holy Priests the way the FSSP or even the SPPX do instead of having priests dance around the periphery materially helping the poor if they can instead of spiritually helping them even more which is what they are called to do?

Fr Martin Fox said...

Mark Thomas:

No, Mark, you are missing the point; and doing a little bit of "spin" yourself.

You ignore what a lot of people are saying, including on this site.

It's not about being "pro Pope Francis"; that's what you want it to be about, as in the case of so many others.

Rather, it's about whether it's true -- as you and Mark Shea and others maintain -- that all is well in the Francis-led Vatican. And if anyone says otherwise, then you and these others label them as anti-Pope Francis.

Cardinal Mueller's two interviews make the point: you can both say, the Pope is pope, we love him and appreciate him when he's right, and we can be careful in what we say about his governance...

But we can also say, forthrightly, that something is very wrong, and needs attention, in how the Vatican is conducting business.

You have tried to maintain an "all is well" narrative for quite a while, dismissing those who have said, for some time, no, all is NOT well. And at least some of the time, you not only dismiss the concerns, but also label those raising them as anti-Francis. And, of course, you can always find someone who really fits that description if needed.

But quite a lot of us are simply alarmed. And we'd really like it if Pope Francis would respond. I want him to say, not -- "I will not say a single word" about Archbishop McCarrick, but rather to say, "I want a complete, open and aggressive investigation, and I want everyone from the Holy See to the dioceses involved to cooperate fully." But Pope Francis has actually said the first, and refused to say, or do, the second. He asked the media to investigate, but has anyone in the Vatican cooperated? Nope.

Explain how wanting the pope to be the good guy, and lamenting that he is behaving like a bad guy, is being "anti Francis," please?

Mark Thomas said...

Among major Catholic bloggers, Father McDonald is almost alone in having publicized the support that Cardinal Müller has given to Pope Francis.

The leading "traditional" Catholic bloggers have refused to publicize Cardinal Müller pro-Pope Francis comments in question.

Said folks, as they hate the Vicar of Christ, traffic only in horrific negativity against Pope Francis.

Again, had Cardinal Müller said anything that the "traditionalists" could have spun as having been negative toward the Holy Father, said folks would have granted "BREAKING" news status to Cardinal Müller's interview.

The two-faced Pope Francis-hating right-wing has again demonstrated that their hatred of Pope Francis is profound...so much so that they will blackout anything positive that has surfaced in regard to Pope Francis.

But once again, Father McDonald has demonstrated that he is a fair man. He did not attempt to hide Cardinal Müller's pro-Pope Francis comments from his (Father McDonald's) readers.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Tony V said...

We all have the right to ask the pope to resign! This kids-glove treatment of the pope is a modern, post-Vatican One aberration.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Mark:

Was your last remark an answer to my question?

Mark Thomas said...

Victor said..."Mr Thomas and Cdl Mueller both seem to ignore the damage these predators have caused the victims, something which Absp Vagano keeps raising again and again to deaf ears at the Vatican."

Deaf ears at the Vatican? I disagree with you. But one thing is certain in regard to the Vatican: His Holiness Pope Francis is well aware of the damage that has been inflicted upon the victims in question.

Victims of abuse inflicted upon them by priests have praised Pope Francis for the attention, concern, and care that he has provided the victims.

In addition, Cardinal O'Malley has noted that Pope Francis cares deeply for the victims in question.

Cardinal O'Malley declared:

"Accompanying the Holy Father at numerous meetings with survivors I have witnessed his pain of knowing the depth and breadth of the wounds inflicted on those who were abused and that the process of recovery can take a lifetime.

"The Pope’s statements that there is no place in the life of the Church for those who would abuse children and that we must adhere to zero tolerance for these crimes are genuine and they are his commitment."

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Father McDonald said..."Mark, Cardinal Mueller did not question the substance of many of the concerns of Archbishop Vigano, but he did question an Archbishop seeking to dismiss a pope, asking for a resignation. That was clearly wrong."

Father, every news story that I've read in regard to Cardinal Müller's interview in question has characterized Cardinal Müller as having repudiated Archbishop Viganò's "testimonies" — defamation of Pope Francis.

Anyway, the following is certain:

-- Cardinal Müller repudiated Archbishop Viganò's call for Pope Francis to resign as Pope. (Archbishop backed off on that.)

-- Cardinal Müller refused to support Archbishop Viganò's claim that a massive homosexual lobby exists within the Church.

-- Cardinal Müller repudiated the public controversy that Archbishop Viganò instigated.

-- Cardinal Müller noted that Holy Mother Church is the ultimate victim via Archbishop Viganò's attack/rebellion against Pope Francis.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Fr Martin Fox said...

Mark, are you giving me the silent treatment? That's fine, but it will just be better all around if you just come out and say you aren't going to respond to me.

Mark Thomas said...

Fr Martin Fox said..."No, Mark, you are missing the point; and doing a little bit of "spin" yourself. But we can also say, forthrightly, that something is very wrong, and needs attention, in how the Vatican is conducting business.

"You have tried to maintain an "all is well" narrative for quite a while, dismissing those who have said, for some time, no, all is NOT well. And at least some of the time, you not only dismiss the concerns, but also label those raising them as anti-Francis. And, of course, you can always find someone who really fits that description if needed."

Father, all has NOT been well within the Vatican from the founding of the Church of Rome to date.

All has NEVER been well within the Church.

Judas betrayed Jesus Christ...our first Pope denied Jesus Christ three times...countless laymen have betrayed Jesus Christ...homosexuals have been present within the Church from Her birth...

...heresies and schisms have abounded within the Church. Over the centuries, tens upon tens of millions of Catholics have abandoned the Faith.

Welcome to the Catholic Church.
==============================================================================

Father, I noted on this thread that we have the right to express in charitable fashion our concerns to Pope Francis (and our bishops). But we do not have the right to spread lies and rebellion against Holy Mother Church and Her Pope.

Folks who do so are anti-Pope Francis. More than that, as Cardinal Müller noted, Holy Mother Church is the ultimate victim here.

Archbishop Viganò, along with leading right-wing, Pope Francis-hating bloggers who coordinated their "V is for Viganò" attack against Pope Francis during the Pope's final day in Ireland, are anti-Pope Francis. That is undeniable.

They have placed a blackout upon Cardinal Müller defense of Pope Francis.

It is undeniable that said folks traffic daily in attacks and the promotion of lies against the Vicar of Christ. Said folks will promote virtually any lie...any conspiracy concocted to defame Pope Francis.

But they refuse to promote Cardinal Müller's having called out the garbage that
Archbishop Viganò concocted, then hurled, at Pope Francis.

All is NOT well with Archbishop Viganò and the "V is for Viganò" Pope Francis-hating gang.

I stand with Cardinal Müller and his loyalty to, and defense of, His Holiness Pope Francis.

Cardinal Müller has shown us the Catholic way in regard to the manner in which should treat the Vicar of Christ.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Father Martin said..."And we'd really like it if Pope Francis would respond. I want him to say, not -- "I will not say a single word" about Archbishop McCarrick, but rather to say, "I want a complete, open and aggressive investigation, and I want everyone from the Holy See to the dioceses involved to cooperate fully."

Father Martin, that is what you want the Pope to say. But is your way that which is best for the Church?

I imagine that you have (or have had) parishioners who've wanted you to say or do "X". But you have followed a different path.

Anyway, Cardinal Müller said in regard to Archbishop Viganò's "testimonies" that it is the cardinals, as representatives of the Church of Rome, who can help the Pope or ask the Pope for some explanations."

"But this must take place in private, in the proper places, and without ever making a public controversy with attacks that end up questioning the credibility of the Church and her mission."

I agree with Cardinal Müller.

Pope Francis has responded responsibly to Archbishop Viganò (as well as the right-wing Pope Francis-hating force with which he's aligned).

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Dan said...

"Victims of abuse inflicted upon them by priests have praised Pope Francis for the attention, concern, and care that he has provided the victims."

Well, I know we will be inundated by some cut and paste quotes from a few people who said something positive, BUT, are you kidding me?

TJM said...

Father Fox,

It is MT's inveterate practice to avoid answering direct questions and just swirl about cutting and pasting things in defense of his little god. For MT, the Pope is a golden calf, and MT's views on the papacy and its powers border on the heretical. In a way, you have to pity him. He has come of age at a time when the Catholic Faith has not been properly taught and handed down, and that is my biggest beef with Rome and the hierarchy. Rather than address the loss of faith in the Real Presence or the scandal of homosexuality in the clergy, they try to divert attention from their failures by pursuing secular matters such as "global warming" and "immigration" which are best left to the prudential judgment of the secular world.

I place my faith more in priests like you and Father McDonald, than in the time servers and lackeys in the hierarchy who should just get off the planet.

Mark Thomas said...

Father Fox, I am thankful that His Holiness Pope Francis did not respond as you desired to the attack that Archbishop Viganò launched against the Holy Father.

If anything, Cardinal Müller's chastisement of Archbishop Viganò's awful methods — that is, Archbishop Viganò decided to stir public controversy, which, in turn, led ultimately to "questioning the credibility of the Church and her mission." — is good enough reason for Pope Francis to have rejected the response to Archbishop Viganò that you desired.

In fact, last month via his third "testimony," Archbishop Viganò revealed his true motivation behind his attack against Pope Francis — actually, as Cardinal Müller noted, Archbishop Viganò's real victim is Holy Mother Church.

Archbishop Viganò revealed that he went public with his attack for one simple reason:

He despises Pope Francis' approach to theology.

Archbishop Viganò did not speak out for victims of sexual abuse. He didn't speak out for the alleged victims of Archbishop McCarrick.

Archbishop Viganò launched his attack against Pope Francis — ultimately, Holy Mother Church — for the following reason:

He said of Pope Francis:

"...when the successor of Peter is negligent in exercising his principal mission, which is to confirm the brothers in the faith and in sound moral doctrine. When he then exacerbates the crisis by contradictory or perplexing statements about these doctrines, the confusion is worsened.

"Therefore I spoke."
====================================================================================

Archbishop Viganò is at odds with Pope Francis doctrinally. He, and his "V for Vigano" Pope Francis-hating right-wing supporters, are enraged at Pope Francis in regard to doctrine.

That is what this is about.

Deo gratias for Pope Francis' holy and wise handling of Archbishop Viganò's nonsense.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

MT I will continue to censor some of your comments when they are just too much out there in La La Land, especially those comments which I deleted concerning the PA Attorney General's report as though it was entirely concocted. It wasn't. It is real and to deny reality, which you often do, exacerbates very real problems in the Church and to cherry pick the methods of Archbishop Vigano's legitimate complaints about the current state of the papacy and Church is like an ostrich sticking his head in the sand, which in fact ostriches don't do and you should overcome.

We need honest voices in the Church today--we are in a crisis not known to the Church since the early Church controversies, the Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation.
Great saints said some stupid things but the truth they spoke is why they were canonized.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Mark:

I simply disagree with you that a full investigation of the McCarrick scandal is a bad idea. You defend, "I will not say one word" as the right move. I disagree. All the faithful, including me, but obviously not limited to me, have a genuine right and need to know that the hierarchy is honest and more than that, has courage and real virtue.

Many, many, many faithful -- and many others! -- cannot fathom how anyone can learn of grooming, lechery, child rape, and attempts to bed seminarians, and respond in the bloodless, bureaucratic way so many of our bishops have responded. Do you get that? I am not a biological father, I don't know if you are; but what parent would respond that way? I will not speak of how they would react if their own child was being preyed upon and abused. How do you think they would react if they learned any child was being groomed and leered over and raped? The responses are instant, natural and almost mandatory. Righteous anger and immediate concern to protect that child and shut down the abuser.

But how did our bishops respond? And the Vatican?

Bloodless. Bureaucratic. Can't be true, the kid is lying. How dare you threaten monsignor's career? You don't want the Church to look bad, do you? Oh well, lechers will be lechers; we'll ship him off for treatment and he'll be good to go. The kid won't even remember what happened. Get over it. Here's a few bucks.

People were silent and approving as McCarrick rose to power. It's all a pattern. Does the pope care? Does he care that people are furious, righteously and properly furious?

He insults those who object; who demand answers; says they are in league with the devil. "I will not say one word."

Where is the investigation? The transparency? The demand for holiness? "Who am I to judge?"

And you just told us all that you approve of this course of action. Astounding.

And when you tell me and all the faithful that we should just shut up and trust the hierarchs...good golly, talk about CLERICALISM!

Fr Martin Fox said...

Good heavens, if Saints Catherine of Siena or Theresa of Avila or Peter Damien were around today, what would they be saying about the bishops, the Vatican? What would they be demanding -- publicly -- from the pope?

And who would be denouncing them for the temerity to challenge the pope?

Mark Thomas said...

Father Fox said..."I simply disagree with you that a full investigation of the McCarrick scandal is a bad idea. You defend, "I will not say one word" as the right move. I disagree."

Father Fox, I favor an investigation of the Mccarrick Affair. Rome is investigating the McCarrick situation.

My point is that I favor Pope Francis' public response to Archbishop Viganò "testimony/testimonies".

Pax.

Mark Thomas

TJM said...

Does anyone know what penalties, if any, the Vatican has imposed on the prelates involved in the cocaine fueled gay sex party at the Vatican in the apartment of one of the pope's proteges? I understand one of the participants was being considered for a bishopric!

TJM said...

Well if the investigation is honest, there are two American cardinal archbishop who should be given their walking papers, but I am not counting on it, since I just learned one of the head foxes is going to head the synod on this very issue.

Fr Martin Fox said...

TJM:

Two answers:

"I will not say one word about this."

"Who am I to judge?"

Oh, and people who report things damaging to bishops? They are doing the devil's work.

Dan said...

"Oh, and people who report things damaging to bishops? They are doing the devil's work."

Yes and possibly also committing CALUMNY!