Pope Francis on letter accusing him of covering up abuses

proof is necessary since it is just to accuse him of this sin that has been going on for centuries and needs to purge out of the church.

Journalists are supposed to get information from primary sources and experts
So asking the Pope what happened was their attempt to find out

Also it is a bit odd that he addresses the Press as the Press, most people use the Press to talk to the world, instead this was a message to those in media

Pretty much the worst answer he could give. A non-answer really with no transparency.

Respect for confidentiality? Do you mean continue a cover-up if one was there?

I have no idea whose reports are true but they should be investigated in the Pope should answer yes or no.

This isn't like the Dubia where he has discretion to not answer.

If the accusations are false then a full transparent investigation will resolve that.

What harm would there have been in saying, "The allegations are untrue."? Instead it sounds as though he wants to talk to a lawyer before going on record, which increases suspicion.

An appropriate response would have been something along the lines of “this is a very serious matter and all relevant parties will be fully investigated, we will release the information to the press and the relivent civil authorities once a responsible investigation has been completed”
Yeah he was on a plane right after visiting Ireland, I did not expect him to have all the answers right at his fingertips, but just saying “you guys find out what happened” is not really the responsible

He is accused of reinstalling a Bishop who used his authority to take advantage of seminarians and who covered up for homosexual predators
These are serious accusations and the Faithful deserve a serious response, not some cryptic “I will not speak another word on this, I trust you to do your jobs”

Woodsy said:

What harm would there have been in saying, "The allegations are untrue."? Instead it sounds as though he wants to talk to a lawyer before going on record, which increases suspicion.

Click to expand...

Since there are many legal aspects to this I do not fault the Holy Father if he choose to talk to lawyers or other advisors first, talk to the other involved parties, talk to Pope Benedict because some of these events started under his reign

But that is not what he said
The Holy Father said that he would not say anything else on this and journalists had to come to their own conclusions

What's interesting is I don't see many people who I know who are normally uneasy about Pope Francis jumping on this. About 90% of them are saying look just transparently investigate.

On the other side I see character assassinations on the archbishop and many attacking his motives with the harshest of supposition. I see People bashing him for saying anything, even if it is true.

Attempts to fight this in the media while claiming conspiracy against the Pope are rampant. In any other context many of the same people would call this media deluge and what aboutism...positivly Trumpian.

It's a simple question that the Pope should answer: When did you find out about the accusations about former Cardinal Mccarrick?

As everyone here knows I'm not an anti Pope Francis guy. I've nuked friendships on this board enforcing the do not flame the Pope rule. I wrote the rule.

But it is not flaming to ask for a truthful straight answer. It's not flaming no matter what that answer is to demand a full investigation.

In the media and the Catholic World in the last few days I see far more character attacks with little or no support on the Archbishop.

If someone wants to believe he's lying that's fine. But they should believe he's lying and demand an investigation.

I can argue this both ways. But the fact is we shouldn't have to. It should have been a very quick I will investigate thoroughly.

We didn't get that. And then till we do we shouldn't let this go

A good statement:

http://themiscellany.org/2018/08/31/bishop-robert-e-guglielmone-pens-letter-to-papal-nuncio/

Davidnic said:

A good statement:

http://themiscellany.org/2018/08/31/bishop-robert-e-guglielmone-pens-letter-to-papal-nuncio/

Click to expand...

Some are saying this is just a rebellion by conservatives within the Church.

Are Guglielmone, DiNardo, and Barron known as hardcore partisans?

No they are not.

The Pontiff needs to put down the shovel he is digging a whole with.

Robinus said:

It is a pity that the scheming Vigano did not have the same respect for confidentiality .

Instead Vigano in disguise skulked off to a journalist in Rome and gave him a an eleven page letter containing matters of a seriously confidential nature.

Click to expand...

Most potential cover-ups are relating to seriously confidential matters. That is how silence, while children suffer, happens. This may or may not be a cover-up.

That is why a full investigation of seriously confidential matters brought into the daylight must happen.

No one should fear an investigation. No one should oppose an investigation.

If he did not want to give information while on the plane he could have done so in the days that have followed.

He needs to let his yes be a yes or his no be a no. He needs to answer.

But attacking a potential whistleblower as violating confidentiality...that is just not going to work.

Amen!

Davidnic said:

Most potential cover-ups are relating to seriously confidential matters. That is how silence, while children suffer, happens. This may or may not be a cover-up.

That is why a full investigation of seriously confidential matters brought into the daylight must happen.

No one should fear an investigation. No one should oppose an investigation.

If he did not want to give information while on the plane he could have done so in the days that have followed.

He needs to let his yes be a yes or his no be a no. He needs to answer.

But attacking a potential whistleblower as violating confidentiality...that is just not going to work.

Click to expand...

And the investigation should be full. Including if there was more behind the Chile gaff earlier this year and the case of his commissioned report (while bishop) exonerating Fr. Grassi that tried to undermine the abused in a case where the priest was proven guilty and given 15 years in jail.

It seems he has a blind spot to people he likes (Barros, McCarrick and Grassi). That does not prove intentional wrongdoing but it is a problem. And it does not refute a coverup. Maybe he has changed in this respect, we don't know.

So an investigation is necessary, just as it would be for anyone.

I keep seeing people saying in some places on the internet (here and others) that the archbishop should be defrocked, the accusations are by a group that is trying to frame the Pope, we need to focus on other things and I really can not help but draw the parallels:

The Archbishop should be defrocked (Muller should be fired people should lose security clearance)
A group trying to frame the Pope (Deep State)
Whataboutism and others things the accusers have done (Hillary's emails)

This is like the end of Animal Farm where the two sides become the same. It is sociologically fascinating. Almost unbearably sad for those in the middle, but fascinating.

When you identify more with liberal or conservative and that bleeds into faith....it creates the same errors in both. As Pope Benedict XVI said before he was Pope:

And so it seems certain to me that the Church is facing very hard times. The real crisis has scarcely begun. We will have to count on terrific upheavals. But I am equally certain about what will remain at the end: not the Church of the political cult, which is dead already, but the Church of faith. She may well no longer be the dominant social power to the extent that she was until recently; but she will enjoy a fresh blossoming and be seen as man's home, where he will find life and hope beyond death.