The information here is very confusing. That is not The Pillar's fault, I am just not sure how to make sense of these different facts (or lack of facts) that are available right now:
1. Cipriani was asked to refrain from public ministry and live outside of Peru by the Vatican. Why is the Vatican still doing such "punishments" and I did no…
The information here is very confusing. That is not The Pillar's fault, I am just not sure how to make sense of these different facts (or lack of facts) that are available right now:
1. Cipriani was asked to refrain from public ministry and live outside of Peru by the Vatican. Why is the Vatican still doing such "punishments" and I did not see the Vatican dispute Cipriani's claim that he had NOT been informed of an investigation or case being made about his case. If that is true, how did the Vatican come to a decision about his guilt (or possible guilt)? Also, why does Cipriani claim that Francis lifted sanctions on him, when the Vatican says that the sanctions are in force? Does Cipriani have receipts to prove that Pope Francis lifted sanctions? As I think if Cipriani does not have evidence to back up that claim his claims of innocence should be looked on with even greater suspicion.
2. I don't see any sort of detail on details of these allegations. When did the abuse take place? What was the relationship between Cipriani and the victim? What were the abuse allegations and how do they hold up to a healthy appraisal? While I agree that abuse should be dealt with in direct and effective punishments for abusers and that victims need to be heard and respected. Yet, I do not think the accused should be without all rights of recourse. The fact that I did not see the Vatican come forward with the evidence against Cipriani only adds to the suspicion that some have about the Pope/Vatican's motivations in this case. I am not saying they do not have evidence but if they want people to not make everything out to be an ideological war and trust that they want to root out abuse no matter the theological jib of the accused, they really need to increase transparency so that the evidence can speak for itself.
The information here is very confusing. That is not The Pillar's fault, I am just not sure how to make sense of these different facts (or lack of facts) that are available right now:
1. Cipriani was asked to refrain from public ministry and live outside of Peru by the Vatican. Why is the Vatican still doing such "punishments" and I did not see the Vatican dispute Cipriani's claim that he had NOT been informed of an investigation or case being made about his case. If that is true, how did the Vatican come to a decision about his guilt (or possible guilt)? Also, why does Cipriani claim that Francis lifted sanctions on him, when the Vatican says that the sanctions are in force? Does Cipriani have receipts to prove that Pope Francis lifted sanctions? As I think if Cipriani does not have evidence to back up that claim his claims of innocence should be looked on with even greater suspicion.
2. I don't see any sort of detail on details of these allegations. When did the abuse take place? What was the relationship between Cipriani and the victim? What were the abuse allegations and how do they hold up to a healthy appraisal? While I agree that abuse should be dealt with in direct and effective punishments for abusers and that victims need to be heard and respected. Yet, I do not think the accused should be without all rights of recourse. The fact that I did not see the Vatican come forward with the evidence against Cipriani only adds to the suspicion that some have about the Pope/Vatican's motivations in this case. I am not saying they do not have evidence but if they want people to not make everything out to be an ideological war and trust that they want to root out abuse no matter the theological jib of the accused, they really need to increase transparency so that the evidence can speak for itself.