Pope Francis Forgets

[chevyontheriver]

"Did Pope Francis know? Was he told, five years before the world found out, that the powerful Cardinal McCarrick was a serial sexual abuser? The diplomat who claims to have informed the pope, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, names two dates on which he raised the matter with Francis: June 23 and October 10, 2013. But the Holy Father, in a new interview with Valentina Alazraki, says he simply can’t remember. “When [Viganò] says he spoke to me that day, he came ... I do not remember if he told me about this. If it is true or not. No idea.”"

"This is not the only gap in the papal memory. Alazraki asked Francis about a February speech that described persistent critics of the Church as “relatives of the devil.” The pope replied: “I do not remember the text but no, no. I do not feel that way.” What about the headline-making 2014 phone call in which the pope allegedly encouraged a woman to ignore Church teaching on Communion and divorce? Also a blank: “What I said to that woman I do not remember.”"

"Francis is also unsure about his famously ambiguous footnote on Communion for those in “irregular relationships”: “I don’t remember the footnote,” he told the press in 2016. The Holy Father is an eighty-two-year-old man with a lot on his plate. But the impression of all these forgettings is—and it hurts to say this—of a teacher who often speaks without much reflection, before or after. While that may not be the greatest of imperfections, in a pope it can be catastrophic."

Pope Francis Forgets | Dan Hitchens

The implications are that pope Francis is well on his way to dementia. And that what he says is taken up by people who have readily worked to change Catholic practice for the worse. Some would say pope Francis is lying. Maybe. Or forgetting. In either case it's a dark night.

 

[Halbhh]

Vigano's word is not enough -- of course the standard we know from scripture is serious matters require at least two witnesses.

And... Vigano was one of the recipients of 'gifts' ($6,000) from ousted West Virginia bishop Michael Bransfield.

As were many other bishops, who are generally scrambling to return the money to the Catholic church from which it ( obviously) came now that it's been revealed they received these 'gifts'...

“The checks have angered many parishioners in West Virginia, one of the poorest states in the nation. They have also raised concerns about the prevalence of clerics giving such gifts to those who hold sway over their careers, as well as about the propriety of accepting those gifts. The gifts were given during years when Bransfield was building a reputation in West Virginia for living a life of opulence and allegedly sexually harassing young priests and seminarians.

"The first thing I feel is just anger and that it suddenly makes sense why there was no ability to have accountability here,” Molly Linehan, a Catholic school administrator in Charleston, W.Va., said Friday about the cash gifts clerics received from Bransfield. “And although anger is the immediate thing, almost just as immediate is sorrow.”

"Several recipients of the checks denied in interviews that the money was intended to buy their silence or pliability. Some said they received checks — described in diocese records obtained by The Post as gifts — after delivering sermons or writing speeches. Other checks marked special occasions, such as birthdays or holidays, they said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/vatican-cardinal-other-priests-to-return-cash-gifts-from-ousted-west-virginia-bishop-michael-bransfield/2019/06/07

 

[Rhamiel]

Vigano's word is not enough

You are correct, it is not enough, but it is not just his word, his story has been supported in part or in full by
Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume who worked with the papal nuncio in the USA
Msgr. Anthony Figueiredo, Who was a secretary to McCarrick
Even Cardinal Marc Ouellet supported major sections of Vigano’s testimony while disagreeing with other parts

 

[chevyontheriver]

Vigano's word is not enough -- of course the standard we know from scripture is serious matters require at least two witnesses.

Correct.

And... Vigano was one of the recipients of 'gifts' ($6,000) from ousted West Virginia bishop Michael Bransfield.

And what did he do with that money? Go buy the services of a prostitute? Or give it away to someone needy? You don't know. And while bishop Bransfield may have been trying to buy influence it does not mean that archbishop Vigano was unduly influenced. The attempt to corrupt someone does not guarantee that person has been corrupted. Even there, if he were corrupted, it would be in the opposite direction that Vigano is heading. Vigano has called for the resignation of pope Francis because of the scandal of ex-cardinal Mr. McCarrick. Bransfield and McCarrick were playing essentially the same game. Bransfield would want Vigano to drop it and tolerate the homosexual corruption rather than call for the resignation of the pope over the matter. Vigano is not impugned by Bransfield.

The concern of this thread is that pope Francis appears not to remember major things that someone in his position should remember. He appears unfit for duty. That is if he actually does not remember. Not remembering a conversation about sanctions against a powerful cardinal found to have serious sexual abuse problems is itself a problem. Forgetting all of these other things as well is worse. It comes back to whether he is fit for duty. That question is relevant whether or not there is corroboration of what archbishop Vigano says. That question is relevant irrespective of bishop Bransfield's homosexual lifestyle of the rich and famous.

 

[Michie]

From the article:

The Vatican's liturgy chief, Cardinal Robert Sarah, recently observed: "Everyday I receive calls for help from everywhere from those who no longer know what they are to believe. Every day in Rome, I receive discouraged and suffering priests. The Church is going through a dark night." Cardinal Sarah points the finger at "high-ranking prelates" rather than the pope himself. Nevertheless, his image will resonate with the many Catholics who feel that darkness has descended on the Church, and that they can scarcely see more than a few steps ahead.

Pope Francis Forgets | Dan Hitchens

"Did Pope Francis know? Was he told, five years before the world found out, that the powerful Cardinal McCarrick was a serial sexual abuser? The diplomat who claims to have informed the pope, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, names two dates on which he raised the matter with Francis: June 23 and October 10, 2013. But the Holy Father, in a new interview with Valentina Alazraki, says he simply can’t remember. “When [Viganò] says he spoke to me that day, he came ... I do not remember if he told me about this. If it is true or not. No idea.”"

"This is not the only gap in the papal memory. Alazraki asked Francis about a February speech that described persistent critics of the Church as “relatives of the devil.” The pope replied: “I do not remember the text but no, no. I do not feel that way.” What about the headline-making 2014 phone call in which the pope allegedly encouraged a woman to ignore Church teaching on Communion and divorce? Also a blank: “What I said to that woman I do not remember.”"

"Francis is also unsure about his famously ambiguous footnote on Communion for those in “irregular relationships”: “I don’t remember the footnote,” he told the press in 2016. The Holy Father is an eighty-two-year-old man with a lot on his plate. But the impression of all these forgettings is—and it hurts to say this—of a teacher who often speaks without much reflection, before or after. While that may not be the greatest of imperfections, in a pope it can be catastrophic."

Pope Francis Forgets | Dan Hitchens

The implications are that pope Francis is well on his way to dementia. And that what he says is taken up by people who have readily worked to change Catholic practice for the worse. Some would say pope Francis is lying. Maybe. Or forgetting. In either case it's a dark night.

 

[Halbhh]

Correct.

And what did he do with that money? Go buy the services of a prostitute? Or give it away to someone needy? You don't know. And while bishop Bransfield may have been trying to buy influence it does not mean that archbishop Vigano was unduly influenced. The attempt to corrupt someone does not guarantee that person has been corrupted. Even there, if he were corrupted, it would be in the opposite direction that Vigano is heading. Vigano has called for the resignation of pope Francis because of the scandal of ex-cardinal Mr. McCarrick. Bransfield and McCarrick were playing essentially the same game. Bransfield would want Vigano to drop it and tolerate the homosexual corruption rather than call for the resignation of the pope over the matter. Vigano is not impugned by Bransfield.

The concern of this thread is that pope Francis appears not to remember major things that someone in his position should remember. He appears unfit for duty. That is if he actually does not remember. Not remembering a conversation about sanctions against a powerful cardinal found to have serious sexual abuse problems is itself a problem. Forgetting all of these other things as well is worse. It comes back to whether he is fit for duty. That question is relevant whether or not there is corroboration of what archbishop Vigano says. That question is relevant irrespective of bishop Bransfield's homosexual lifestyle of the rich and famous.

I agree with what you wrote here, and perhaps we both take caution not to merely believe Vigano's recent asserting Francis basically did hear and remember and doesn't tell the truth. It's such a judging conclusion Vigano is making.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I agree with what you wrote here, and perhaps we both take caution not to merely believe Vigano's recent asserting Francis basically did hear and remember and doesn't tell the truth. It's such a judging conclusion Vigano is making.

Vigano's track record so far is actually pretty good. As to whether pope Francis is lying (Vigano's contention) or doesn't remember (Francis' contention) well, we need another actual witness, or some document, some corroboration. We don't have that yet.

But pope Francis doesn't remember things he actually did say in the public record. His memory is flawed, seriously flawed. And he leads a billion Catholics. Problem.

 

[chevyontheriver]

From the article:

The Vatican's liturgy chief, Cardinal Robert Sarah, recently observed: "Everyday I receive calls for help from everywhere from those who no longer know what they are to believe. Every day in Rome, I receive discouraged and suffering priests. The Church is going through a dark night." Cardinal Sarah points the finger at "high-ranking prelates" rather than the pope himself. Nevertheless, his image will resonate with the many Catholics who feel that darkness has descended on the Church, and that they can scarcely see more than a few steps ahead.

This is so sad. Only a few short years ago there was reason for optimism within the Catholic Church despite some real problems. Now it's the middle of the night, and discouragement is the norm. And pope Francis can't remember.

 

[Halbhh]

Vigano's track record so far is actually pretty good. As to whether pope Francis is lying (Vigano's contention) or doesn't remember (Francis' contention) well, we need another actual witness, or some document, some corroboration. We don't have that yet.

But pope Francis doesn't remember things he actually did say in the public record. His memory is flawed, seriously flawed. And he leads a billion Catholics. Problem.

Certainly he'd need at least a normal memory ability. That would mean being able to generally remember important things even though one aboslutely must and does forget dozens or hundreds of things everyday, as part of normal brain function of a healthy brain with normal memory.

For a person hearing and saying many dozens of things everyday, with a healthy human memory that is working well, we'd expect them to forget much of it by months later. That's normal brain function.

So, tell me us forgot quite a few things, and it tells us nothing necessarily.

Tell us (very differently) someone is forgetting most things, and then there is a problem.

About remembering truly important things...what is important isn't the same to different people usually. In the scope of being so central in a gigantic church, he's going to hear hundreds of things that seem important to various individuals, small groups, but aren't as important as other things he is focused more on. That would be normal.

Example: he might forget everything Vigano said, but remember dozens of other more important things, things that mattered more. He might forget something someone else helped write in a footnote (speculating here), but remember instead the key principle he is applying.

 

[Michie]

It's more than sad. People are leaving the Church over this confusion because they think it does not matter. The Pope has a way of speaking out of the side of his mouth and passive aggressively dropping insults, hints, etc. in homilies and while addressing others. For instance, telling the CCR that fear of change was a temptation direct from the devil. Do you really think it was meant for the group? I don't. It is just something he knew would be put out there for all to read.

This is so sad. Only a few short years ago there was reason for optimism within the Catholic Church despite some real problems. Now it's the middle of the night, and discouragement is the norm. And pope Francis can't remember.

 

[Davidnic]

The Pope might not intend it...others around him may be taking advantage. I don't know.

What I do know is that, intended or not, the Pope is a source of weaponized confusion.

May God guide us all through it.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Certainly he'd need at least a normal memory ability. That would mean being able to generally remember important things even though one aboslutely must and does forget dozens or hundreds of things everyday, as part of normal brain function of a healthy brain with normal memory.

For a person hearing and saying many dozens of things everyday, with a healthy human memory that is working well, we'd expect them to forget much of it by months later. That's normal brain function.

Granted.

About remembering truly important things...what is important isn't the same to different people usually. In the scope of being so central in a gigantic church, he's going to hear hundreds of things that seem important to various individuals, small groups, but aren't as important as other things he is focused more on. That would be normal.

Example: he might forget everything Vigano said, but remember dozens of other more important things, things that mattered more. He might forget something someone else helped write in a footnote (speculating here), but remember instead the key principle he is applying.

He doesn't remember very important things. Footnote 15 of chapter 8 of his own encyclical has been a flash point and he has even had time to refresh his memory on the subject. Being told by an apostolic nuncio for the USA that the most powerful prelate in the country is an abuser and was sanctioned by his predecessor IS an important thing. I would hope he could remember that, or remember never having heard that (which he claimed for a while) without falling back to not remembering. It's fine to forget things. It's OK to need to be reminded of things. But in the article it was brought up how in numerous instances he was clueless about important things. There IS something wrong here. The less charitable interpretation is that he has conveniently forgotten in the way some people do when questioned before a congressional committee.

 

[Halbhh]

Granted.

He doesn't remember very important things. Footnote 15 of chapter 8 of his own encyclical has been a flash point and he has even had time to refresh his memory on the subject. Being told by an apostolic nuncio for the USA that the most powerful prelate in the country is an abuser and was sanctioned by his predecessor IS an important thing. I would hope he could remember that, or remember never having heard that (which he claimed for a while) without falling back to not remembering. It's fine to forget things. It's OK to need to be reminded of things. But in the article it was brought up how in numerous instances he was clueless about important things. There IS something wrong here. The less charitable interpretation is that he has conveniently forgotten in the way some people do when questioned before a congressional committee.

Ok. I do not trust Vigano to be telling the exact truth.

Also, suppose hypothetically Vigano did say something back then when he claims. If you are correct Francis's memory is failing, then that would mean Vigano just made a slanderous accusation just recently when he asserted Francis does remember and is lying.

 

[Rhamiel]

Ok. I do not trust Vigano to be telling the exact truth.

Reasonable view, whistleblowers are not always innocent little angels
Do you think Pope Francis is telling the exact truth?

Also, suppose hypothetically Vigano did say something back then when he claims. If you are correct Francis's memory is failing, then that would mean Vigano just made a slanderous accusation just recently when he asserted Francis does remember and is lying.

So this leaves us with a few options
1. Vigano is being sloppy and is just making an uncharitable accusation
2. Viganò knows the Pope did not remember and is openly telling a lie
3. Viganò has serious reasons to believe the Pope is being dishonest and not just forgetful

 

[chevyontheriver]

Ok. I do not trust Vigano to be telling the exact truth.

OK. We are not going to conclude anything based on the testimony of archbishop Vigano alone. It would need to be corroborated whether he told pope Francis about McCarrick. He says he did, on two occasions, but maybe he is a bald-faced liar. Doesn't look like it, but his word alone is insufficient to conclude pope Francis knew.

Also, suppose hypothetically Vigano did say something back then when he claims. If you are correct Francis's memory is failing, then that would mean Vigano just made a slanderous accusation just recently when he asserted Francis does remember and is lying.

That would be in the mind of pope Francis whether he forgot or he is lying. It is a charitable assumption that pope Francis is overly forgetful. And maybe it's true. The other logical assumption is that he is only pretending to forget, which gets the heat off him for purposefully doing so much damage to the Church.

 

[Davidnic]

It's a huge problem too that Pope Francis himself says he doesn't remember the footnote. It's the main encyclical of his papal career. That one point has caused untold conflict. Even if he didn't remember it if there was no conflict... How can he not remember it after the dubia.

I'm not saying the Pope is lying. I believe him if he says he doesn't remember.

But that's actually kind of worse. To not remember that when it's been brought up constantly is either a huge problem with the aging Pope and his memory.... Or complete lack of attention to his own teaching, and distain for those who have asked for clarification on it.

The memory thing from his own lips actually makes me worried.

 

[Halbhh]

Reasonable view, whistleblowers are not always innocent little angels
Do you think Pope Francis is telling the exact truth?


So this leaves us with a few options
1. Vigano is being sloppy and is just making an uncharitable accusation
2. Viganò knows the Pope did not remember and is openly telling a lie
3. Viganò has serious reasons to believe the Pope is being dishonest and not just forgetful

I think it's likely that Francis is telling the truth in what he says, based on reading a lot of other things Francis has said that show he's a believer and knows the gospel really well, and has real insight or inspiration from the Spirit also. And his actions. Things he's done. They show real fruits of the Spirit, as listed in Galatians chapter 5. I feel pretty confident that generally Francis is what Catholics should hope to have in a bishop, also, and myself have learned good things from him.

I'm not saying I think Francis could never do anything wrong (didn't say that!), but since you are asking for simply my opinion/guess (not fact), I bet Francis is telling the truth.

I don't have any basis to guess among those possibilities for Vigano. There are additional possibilities also. For instance, I know people that speculate for instance that Trump no longer realizes when he is saying an false thing he once would have known is false, that he's lost the ability to distinguish. How can we know? We'd have to be able to read his mind. That's beyond our ability of course.

But we can look to see is whether a person consistently shows the fruit of the Spirit, and whether they consistently show "love one another" in action, or do not. I've seen and heard a good deal of things from Francis that show the fruits of the spirit. I'm not relying on 2nd hand viewpoints about Francis, but instead on actual direct reading/listening to his words and seeing his actions.

If a person is only reading 2nd hand viewpoints about Francis, they don't get a chance to see/hear him, and get a full extensive reading/hearing (such as hearing several entire homilies).

To know him some in a more accurate way, any person would need to listen (or read) extensively things he says, and see him in action (videos, more than a minute or 2 long), and such.

How many Catholics have? How many only instead read about him in opinion pieces instead? I'd not put too much credence into 2nd hand views.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

It's a huge problem too that Pope Francis himself says he doesn't remember the footnote. It's the main encyclical of his papal career. That one point has caused untold conflict. Even if he didn't remember it if there was no conflict... How can he not remember it after the dubia.

I'm not saying the Pope is lying. I believe him if he says he doesn't remember.

But that's actually kind of worse. To not remember that when it's been brought up constantly is either a huge problem with the aging Pope and his memory.... Or complete lack of attention to his own teaching, and distain for those who have asked for clarification on it.

The memory thing from his own lips actually makes me worried.

Razorsharp and informative as always, thanks for great comment David .

 

[chevyontheriver]

How many Catholics have? How many only instead read about him in opinion pieces instead?

I have. I thought initially he was going to be another great pope. I spent about two years eager to hear what he haad to say and when he would say something awkward I was eager to explain to the world what he really intended. But I gave up. For my sanity I couldn't keep defending the things he said that were indefensible. I began to ask why so much confusion was generated by one man. If he says he doesn't remember, and if that is true, he's still made a mess.

 

[paul1149]

I thought initially he was going to be another great pope.

I remember clearly when he was first elected he acted like a populist. Getting out of the limo and talking to folks, calling people randomly from the phone book and saying, Hi, this is the pope, reaching out to Ken Copeland, embracing that guy with the head deformity, etc. Everyone was thrilled about it. Then I began to hear of him locking out conservatives from a climate change conference - didn't even allow them to audit, let alone speak; exiling Burke, etc. I couldn't reconcile the two behaviors, and still really can't. His pronouncements seem to have gotten only more consistently left-wing over the years.