I think that by far the best outcome to al of this would be a realization on Pope Francis' part that he has been ill-advised and manipulated, and that there is a better way forward than the one he has chosen in the past.

I would recommend loyalty to him, though not to some of his actions. He has chosen the wrong friends. That doesn't mean he can't make some of the right ones.

Sorry, Kathy, I must forcefully disagree. At the end of the day, we are simply perpetuating the cycle if we give him a pass by saying "ill-advised and manipulated". There is a pattern here that has been demonstrated several times. Cardinals that were disciplined by Benedict (McCarrick wasn't the only one), only to have the discipline relaxed under Francis. What fiasco did we see in Chile not all that long ago? It was only when his backing of the bishop in question became untenable that he finally went into action. What response to the situation in Pennsylvania? And this all against a backdrop where Francis has seemed determined to redefine "family" and the values we MUST adhere to as Catholics.

I'm all for giving him an opportunity to explain... but I'm not at all about to whitewash this with "I received bad advice".

And what constitutes "loyalty"? He hasn't really impressed me as being loyal to Jesus Christ in so many aspects of his pontificate... He was more concerned about being warm and fuzzy with those who are pitted against the Church. If we are going to pick one to be loyal to, shouldn't it be Christ first?

Being eastern, I can have mixed feelings about the whole papacy thing. I admired Pope Benedict, but I admired him long before he became pope. Francis seemed to be an odd choice and there is no guarantee the cardinals would even choose him if the election were held today.

I am of the opinion that the Orthodox are right in saying they would accept the papacy as it existed in the first thousand years of Christianity. Popes became monarchs in the second thousand years and took on imperial powers. Unfortunately, there was no longer an emperor to keep them in check. I do respect the office if not always its occupant. As an eastern bishop once said, "Today we are Catholic, tomorrow who knows?"

What now with the scandals? Who knows how this will play out. I am afraid it is going to get much uglier before it is over. I suspect there is more there than any of us know.

I agree priests are targets. See my post on my conversation with our associate pastor earlier. But Francis seems to have a great gift for putting his foot in his mouth. He brings it on himself sometimes.

Whoa Nelly!!

First of all, no, we're not just as culpable. I don't have any authority to censure the Pope. I didn't know anything at the time. I'm nowhere near as culpable. I took steps to ensure the safety of volunteers and employees for whom I was responsible. Ignoring that responsibility--which I did not do--would have made me just as culpable. I am not.

Secondly, I never said "that's all right." The Pope chose who to listen to. Or he let himself be bullied into it. Or he has been reading bad books that led him think the wrong people were good advisors. Or, it could be, that he has not been cooperating with grace. These are all in the realm of vincible ignorance--he should have done MUCH better. It's not all right.

But it could be.

And yet, he (Francis) was able to demand an investigation into Vigano the very day the news broke that he had supposedly "quashed" that other investigation... immediately. The very day.
He is picking and choosing what is worth responding to or taking action against, but it doesn't seem to be working out in his favor.

.

I have read that his successors, after he was a Jesuit Superior stated that it would take 20 years to straighten out the mess he had made. Is he making a mess of things again, but this time in Rome?

Prayers for the guilty, as well as, for all of us who have to deal with the fallout from it.

Re Gamba, that’s the statement relating to the Griffith memo that I posted earlier. I think CCooz posted the full Vigano response earlier in the thread.

As someone who lives in the affected diocese, Vigano’s charge against Fr. Griffith’s testimony gives me even less reason to want to believe him. Griffith, both auxiliary bishops, and the two attorneys involved all interpreted Vigano’s request to halt the Nienstedt investigation as an order, whether he intended it as such or not (which is all that matters in a court of law). Griffith also mentioned in his memo (which I posted earlier) that Vigano’s directive to the auxiliaries to destroy their letter documenting said request would’ve constituted a federal crime by destroying evidence in what had then become a criminal investigation into Archbishop Nienstedt’s conduct. It’s worth nothing that that documented incident was later brought up in a criminal trial against the Archdiocese as evidence of conspiracy to coverup abuse. To my knowledge, federal investigators also sought charges of conspiracy to destroy evidence against Vigano himself (which obviously went nowhere since he then had diplomatic immunity). That Vigano wants Griffith, the auxiliaries, and our current Archbishop (who was in no way involved at the time) to apologize for documenting their side of the events is absolutely astounding.

Nor do I find Vigano’s assessment of the Nienstedt investigation to be merited. As Griffith testified, the law firm selected was already one of only three that Nienstedt’s belligerent personal attorney would allow, and none of the three clerics involved (and other consulted attorneys) thought that the personal opinions of some partner attorneys constituted a conflict of interest, especially given the sheer breadth of their other clientele in Minnesota. If anything, Vigano’s zeroing I’m on the gay marriage issue in both his statements this week as well as during the Nienstedt investigation (which itself focused on numerous allegations of homosexual misconduct) is, I think, very revealing.

I know was long winded, but I think it helps provide valuable context to this whole affair. Needless to say, I think Vigano’s checkered record on abuse coverup and his obstinate lack of contrition in asking people under his authority to commit federal crimes severely wounds his credibility in any accusations of similar wrongdoing by the Holy Father.

@pfreese

This is one way of looking at it.

The other way of looking at it is that the auxiliary bishops intentionally misinterpreted Vigano’s request to hear Neinstedt before continuing their course of action (which I believe was to go to Rome?) in an effort to make him look bad and Viganò was trying to correct this

I’m not saying either way of looking at it is right, but as I read the documents this is how I saw it.

Re Settefrati93, perhaps, but I doubt this supposed miscommunication was intentional on the part of the auxiliaries, as they had no incentive to add to the drama in this already explosive story. The investigators desire to go to Rome to interview the Swiss Guardsmen (denounced by Vigano) was noted to be because of multiple affidavits that refered to it from the Archdiocese of Detroit (Nienstedt’s home diocese). And at least according to Griffith, there’s no legal or investigative standard that would’ve rendered such an action before interviewing Nienstedt to be inappropriate. Vigano still apparently shows utter contempt for that whole investigation as per his Monday letter, which is why the auxiliaries’ allegation that Vigano told them to end it completely (as opposed to just do Nienstedt first), seems very believable to me.

As a last tidbit, Nienstedt did end up resigning over a year later, which unnamed priests here have speculated was coerced from the Congregation of Bishops regarding the allegations against him as well the Archdiocese’s then-recent declaration of bankruptcy (then one of the first in the U.S.). He’s since left the province, and at least one bishop refused to incadinate him due to the allegations, and I’m not sure what ministerial activity he had along his (recently ended) stint at the Napa Institute.

Not exactly our archdiocese’s finest moment...

So while some people are worried about a small part of +Vigano's statement,

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/vatican-source-pope-dismissed-cdl-mueller-and-others-for-following-church-r?utm_content=buffer049d3&utm_medium=LSN+buffer&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=LSN

and

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-pope-ignored-warning-from-top-vatican-cardinal-not-to-reinstate-de?utm_content=buffer80d37&utm_medium=LSN+buffer&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=LSN

Also my Friend Dr. Shaw has written this excellent piece,
http://www.lmschairman.org/2018/08/vigano-and-pyramid-of-lies.html

This from Vigano, The archbishop says, “I am 78 years old, and I am at the end of my life. The judgment of men does not interest me. The one judgment that counts is that of the good God. He will ask me what I have done for the Church of Christ, and I want to be able to respond to him that I defended her and served her even to the end.” compare and contrast with -Culpich's statement!

Vigano was obviously concerned with Canon Law in the Nienstedt case, as it appeared to him that Nienstedt was being railroaded. Canon Law is not irrelevant, as I'm sure pfreese knows. In fact, to a Churchman, it's far more important than civil law--because only Canon Law can be used to "de-frock" him.

Also, Vigano obviously thought that documents sent to him were protected under diplomatic treaty. Perhaps he was wrong, but perhaps not. There's a good deal that we do NOT know here.

As to Vigano's creds; to me, he's a WHOLE lot more credible than pp Francis, who has specialized in wiggle-wording and evasion throughout his Papacy.

This depravity is not isolated. It is the result of sin which is the result of heresy which is fostered by liturgical abuse and sacrilege on a daily basis for 50 years. It is all connected. https://onepeterfive.com/bad-think-corruption-worse/

“How does it feel to be living in a Malachi Martin novel?"

Personally it feels more like HBO’s “The Young Pope.” Kinda sad

Lenny (presumably) dies.
HHF not going there. Fo' now.

That Vigano insisted McCarrick was guilty for over a decade but the charges against Nienstedt weren’t worth looking into

I'm not sure where you get the idea that it was as flippant as that.
That isn't what I've gotten out of Abp Vigano's letters or any of the rest of it.

Also, after attempting to read the memo you posted here, I felt it left one wanting to read the document and memos to which he was referring, since "regarding your letter, regarding so-and-so's reply," etc. tells one nothing of which he is speaking, but only his opinion of what was going on, whether or not he was actually there.
Is there a document floating around, somewhere, with the information to which he alludes, or are we supposed to just assume that everything he says are based off of something concrete and exactly as he describes them, as well?

I can appreciate that being part of the diocese in question can give one a different view.
His integrity, though, has been attested to by many, and names seem to be added to that list, daily.
Thus far, the priests and bishops that I've seen attempting to sway one from listening are the like of Fr. James Martin and Cardinal Cupich, whose own agendas are, unfortunately, questionable, at best.

By the way, here is a wonderful homily that I heard, yesterday:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/spm-straph-parish-wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/20084333/208.mp3

When Cupich comes out and says that the Church needs to move on and "not go down a rabbit hole" with this, and then say that people "don't like [the Pope] because he's a Latino", I'm not sure anyone can listen to him and then say that his voice matters a whole ton in this situation.

Re. Casavant and dad, when did Cupich say those things? I genuinely want to know if I’m missing something, because he didn’t say anything close to that in his official statement, only that “a thorough vetting of the former nuncio’s many claims is required before any assessment of their credibility can be made.”

https://www.archchicago.org/en/statement/-/article/2018/08/26/statement-of-cardinal-blase-j-cupich-in-response-to-the-testimony-of-former-apostolic-nuncio-to-the-united-states-carlo-maria-vigano

"By their fruits you will know them"

Anyway good luck watering the fig tree, it has not produced any fruit for a long time, our Blessed Lord has cursed it, and tomorrow it will be dead and we can 'cast it into the fire'.

Catherine, exactly. Everyone knows he's from Argentina. I don't know if anyone thinks (or cares) he's "Latino."

Born Jorge Mario Bergoglio in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Just so, Charles.

As far as my googling is concerned, Argentinians seem to refer to themselves as such, and not as either Hispanic or Latino.

.