Posted on 05/31/2019 12:43:03 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
It is no small thing to call the pope a liar. Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has done just that, in straightforward language. “What the Pope said about not knowing anything [about Theodore McCarrick’s misconduct] is a lie,” he told LifeSite News.
On the other hand, it is no small thing to claim that an archbishop, a veteran member of the Vatican diplomatic corps, had lied about the pope as part of a political conspiracy to undermine his authority. Such charges have been leveled against Viganò by the pope’s most stalwart public defenders and perhaps—depending on how one interprets some unusually convoluted papal utterances—by the pontiff himself.
Someone is not being forthright here. The unedifying charges and countercharges have aggravated a scandal that already plagues Catholicism, and the faithful have waited far too long for a restoration of confidence that Church leaders are telling the truth.
The conflict between Francis and Viganò became a public matter last summer, when the former papal envoy in Washington reported that the pope had been informed of, and decided to rescind, disciplinary restrictions placed on McCarrick by Pope Benedict XVI. Viganò’s testimony was vigorously contested by the pope’s allies, who said that McCarrick’s ministry had not been restricted, and/or that Francis had not been informed of the restrictions. Francis himself had refused public comment on the matter, until this week.
Now, in an interview with the Mexican Televisa network, he has said that “about McCarrick I knew nothing, obviously—nothing, nothing.” But he paired that sweeping denial with another, contradictory statement: “I don’t remember if [Viganò] told me about this.” If he does not remember, how could he say with confidence that he knew nothing?
The available evidence (including some new documentation released this week) confirms that Benedict did instruct McCarrick to retire from public ministry, that the restrictions were conveyed in writing, and that several key Vatican officials were aware of them. It is equally clear that McCarrick flouted the papal directive with impunity. But it is still not clear—at least it is not proven—that Francis was aware of the restrictions and deliberately lifted them.
What did the pope know, and when did he know it? The answers to those questions are probably readily available, in the files of the Vatican or the apostolic nuncio in Washington. Last October the Vatican promised a thorough investigation. But no new information has been forthcoming from Rome. The world’s Catholic bishops, who might have demanded the truth, have been content to wait, with rare exceptions showing a remarkable docility to the Holy See. Still more remarkable, the world’s major media outlets have not pressed the question, passing up opportunities to investigate a potentially enormous scandal.
In his Televisa interview, Francis disclosed that he had remained silent for tactical reasons, implying that he was confident the media would take their cues from his allies and dismiss Viganò as a conservative crank. Since early in his pontificate, when he won the sympathies of the liberal media—most notably by replying to queries about a homosexual prelate with his most famous phrase, “Who am I to judge?”—Francis has been able to bank on favorable coverage, dodging difficult questions.
But the pope’s account with the media may now be overdrawn. Journalists do not enjoy being manipulated, and in his Televisa interview the pontiff came dangerously close to saying that he knew journalists would not question him too closely: the sort of statement that constitutes a challenge to any red-blooded reporter. The pope was also imprudent in saying that criticisms of his top ally, Cardinal Óscar Maradiaga, were “calumnies.” Reporters have heard that line from Francis before, in his adamant defense of the Chilean Bishop Juan Barros, which the pope was eventually forced to retract as the evidence of Chilean corruption mounted.
To compound the pope’s problems, this week a former secretary to McCarrick, a staunch Francis supporter, released the new documentary evidence of Benedict’s restrictions on McCarrick’s ministry. In doing so, Msgr. Anthony Figueiredo disclosed that he had been inspired by new canonical rules, promulgated by Francis earlier this month, encouraging whistle-blowers. The Figueiredo dossier did not address the key question of what Francis knew. But it now seems only a matter of time until some other cleric releases another stack of documents, raising new questions about the pope’s handling of the abuse scandal.
And already Francis is facing the sort of media skepticism that he has somehow escaped for years. Nicole Winfield of AP observed this week that in the face of mounting complaints about McCarrick, “Francis’ claim to not remember if Vigano told him about McCarrick now amounts to his defense against such criticism.” A lapse of memory is a perilously weak foundation for a pope’s authority.
And thisis not, of course, a one-off. We've been seeing this almost from the beginning of this surreal, disorienting pontificate.
Setting aside, for a moment, the intricacies of a charge of formal heresy, is there a canonical process for removing someone from office for being non compos mentis?
I may say a lot of things about Bergoglio but he’s never struck me as being mentally incompetent.
But where socialism and deception go hand in hand it would follow that he’s a liar.
And you have my continued prayers and support.
Megan
The ImPopester has been lying since the usurpation.
Thank you, MeganC. Your charity is noted and appreciated.
No, he’s not incompetent. He lies with impunity. He’s drunk with power. His management style is a prototypical Latin American strongman in the mold of Peron, Castro, Chavez, Maduro, Noriega, Ortega, etc. But, no, he’s not incompetent. He knows what he’s doing.
PF has been doing a Nixon.
Seriously, renewed persistent-widow-style prayers are in order.
This pope is a Leftist. “Lying rectification” and the “mutability of the past” are techniques used without shame by the devious Left. The problem is that such repetitive public lying works because ,face it, the public as a whole is not terribly bright. They will come believe almost any lie if it is repeated often and persuasively. This homosexual loving, abortion tolerant, America hating pope will pose and say anything to advance his evil intent. He scoffs at Catholic doctrine and at his core he is an agnostic and probably an atheist.
Pope Francis is not necessarily lying, he merely sees the world through a different lens, one not widely used by sober and learned men capable of critical thinking. In his own biased way, he is a product of growing up in the progressive utopia known as Argentina, and with an undercurrent of competing brands of socialism, there was never the development of a world view that could see non-socialist remedies to the ills of mankind. Everything had to fit that mold, and what did not, was simply ignored or banished altogether.
Is Jorge Mario Bergoglio fit to be Pope? That is a different question altogether. His judgment appears to be skewed and not in alignment with many if not most of his followers.
If in fact they still follow him. He seems to be leading a very different parade.
Or both. And throw in he hasn’t read the Bible.
Other high-ranking officials have been caught in lies over this (most notably Cardinal Wuerl). Therefore it’s entirely conceivable that the Pope is a liar.
The emperor has not clothes and only this monseigneur is willing to say it. Mostly because the rest of the Vatican are all clothed only in lies and corruption too.
He may have read it. LIke W.C. Fields, “Looking for loopholes.”
the pope had been informed of, and decided to rescind, disciplinary restrictions placed on McCarrick by Pope Benedict XVI. Viganò’s testimony was vigorously contested by the pope’s allies, who said that McCarrick’s ministry had not been restricted
Pope Francis slyly "baited" the press to go out and do their journalistic duty, but then journalists were denied access to the only places where there anything would be in writing: the archives of the Holy See, and the offices of the Apostolic Nunciature (Embassy) in Washington, DC.
Wuerl's and McCarricks's correspondance files would presumably be out of the question.
To that I would add the Pope encourages the Muslim Hegira worldwide by asking the Christians to accept them as migrants and ignore the fact the Muslims will never integrate, and intend to make Islam and Sharia dominate in the countries they takeover.
The Pope is in the religion business and should know all about a competitive religion like Islam, and the Muslims slaughter of Jews and Christians for the last 1400 years.
Being a liar (Taqiyya)is the Pope's lesser problem for us Americans. -Tom
I wonder what’s the greater sin.
Being cynical or provoking cynicism?
The Pope is a servant of Carl Marx.
Every soul, property of the state.
“In these times, it seems like the ‘Great Accuser’ has been unchained and is attacking bishops. True, we are all sinners, we bishops. He tries to uncover the sins, so they are visible in order to scandalize the people. The ‘Great Accuser’, as he himself says to God in the first chapter of the Book of Job, ‘roams the earth looking for someone to accuse’.”
Revealing “The Great Accuser”: Pope Francis Fires Back at Crictics Despite Pledge of Silence
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.