Cipriani signed the papers acknowledging that he had been notified of punishment by the Vatican, not of having committed any abuse. Anyone who follows Pope Francis' papacy clearly sees that Pope Francis removes and punishes any bishop that dares to criticize him, from Cardinal Muller at CDF to Bishop Strickland in Tyler, something none o…
Cipriani signed the papers acknowledging that he had been notified of punishment by the Vatican, not of having committed any abuse. Anyone who follows Pope Francis' papacy clearly sees that Pope Francis removes and punishes any bishop that dares to criticize him, from Cardinal Muller at CDF to Bishop Strickland in Tyler, something none of the previous Popes at least for the last 100 years have done. In almost all those cases, including that of Bishop Strickland, no reason was given to the bishop why they were asked to resign, which is the definition of injustice as a bishop is not some cash register clerk who you can fire for no reason. It is like St. Peter firing St. James as bishop of Jerusalem without telling him why.
It is very well known that Cipriani and Bergoglio feuded for over 10 years in CELAM with Cipriani promoting more conservative Catholic views and Bergoglio promoting more liberal views like the ones published in the Aparecida Document which Pope Francis consistently quotes as one of his greatest achievements as bishop (and which Cardinal Cipriani opposed). Now there are allegations of abuse against Cardinal Cipriani that even the Pillar admits is not mentioned anywhere in specifics, which Cipriani denies but the Vatican does not specify. That seems very suspicious, especially since the Cardinal has not had his day in court to defend himself against these charges. If Pope Francis will not allow him to defend himself, it is either injustice on the Pope's part or even the possibility of defamation and calumny if the Pope knows the allegations are too flimsy for the Vatican to justify imposing sanctions on Cardinal Cipriani.
How would you like it if you were accused of a crime and had no way of defending yourself, or worse, you were already punished for the crime and you still don't know what you were punished for? Kafka wrote a novel about that called "The Trial." It is scary that the Pope can do this to anyone what Kafka attributed to the most sinister of regimes.
Which was denied by Cardinal Mueller and again he never had a chance to defend himself against those allegations. If he took money from the Vatican, he should be tried in court and convicted of embezzlement. Otherwise its hearsay that should not be repeated by any news outlet more reputable than the National Enquirer. The truth is that Pope Francis told Cardinal Mueller to leave as his 5 year term was up and did not give him any reasons for the dismissal besides that. If there were reasons, then the Pope was unjust in not telling him what the reasons were, instead preferring others to leak information out which then the Pillar picked up.
We know how some people in the Vatican have ways to destroy certain people's reputation, like they tried to do that with Cardinal Pell, Cardinal Burke, and Libero Milone who tried to fix the Vatican finances as Auditor General but was fired and defamed instead.
If what the Pillar wrote was incorrect Müller could have sued them. They did not say he embezzled but that some of his department's money was moved inappropriately to avoid the work of Libero Milone in trying to straighten up Vatican finances.
Cardinal Mueller was dismissed on July 1, 2017 and Libero Milone was fired in June of that same year, which happens to be around the same time when Cardinal Pell was convicted in Australia. At that time Cardinal Becchiu was running the show and allegedly lying to the Pope Francis. So Pope Francis would fire Mueller at the same time when the watchdogs for the Vatican Milone and Pell were being conveniently removed, when Becchiu was calling the shots, the Cardinal who was eventually convicted for financial crimes, but not until 2024. The possibilities are that (1) Mueller was hated by Becchiu and falsely accused like Milone and Pell were or (2) Mueller was in league with Becchiu in committing financial crimes but then Pope Francis would have kept Mueller in place like he did Becchiu for many more years, even advancing him to Cardinal or (3) simply Mueller was removed because he was too conservative to allow for Pope Francis' liberal reforms to occur under his watch (and this is the most likely cause).
To sue someone in the U.S. requires a lot of money to pay for a lawyer. Cardinal Pell did not sue anyone either for the defamation he received from the press. That is really not a good argument for declaring someone innocent or guilty of an act.
You are right. In all situations it would be an injustice, but it is a greater injustice for a bishop because the media will not be writing speculations about what the clerk did, so the loss of reputation among thousands of people will only affect the fired bishop.
Thanks Thomas for your generous explanation. I think I might say that the injustice was the same but the consequences were greater for the bishop, but that would be splitting hairs!
Again, I think this is a stretch of epic proportions. If you were a cardinal of the church who thought you were in good standing, and the Vatican informed you of restricted ministry, I struggle to understand how anyone would just sign the papers without any understanding of why that ministry was being restricted.
It’s like getting written up for an infraction at the office. Your boss presents you a piece of paper, and then you blindly sign it, knowing what’s on it, but later say that you have no idea why you were being punished. It strains credulity that this is actually how it played out.
Cipriani signed the papers acknowledging that he had been notified of punishment by the Vatican, not of having committed any abuse. Anyone who follows Pope Francis' papacy clearly sees that Pope Francis removes and punishes any bishop that dares to criticize him, from Cardinal Muller at CDF to Bishop Strickland in Tyler, something none of the previous Popes at least for the last 100 years have done. In almost all those cases, including that of Bishop Strickland, no reason was given to the bishop why they were asked to resign, which is the definition of injustice as a bishop is not some cash register clerk who you can fire for no reason. It is like St. Peter firing St. James as bishop of Jerusalem without telling him why.
It is very well known that Cipriani and Bergoglio feuded for over 10 years in CELAM with Cipriani promoting more conservative Catholic views and Bergoglio promoting more liberal views like the ones published in the Aparecida Document which Pope Francis consistently quotes as one of his greatest achievements as bishop (and which Cardinal Cipriani opposed). Now there are allegations of abuse against Cardinal Cipriani that even the Pillar admits is not mentioned anywhere in specifics, which Cipriani denies but the Vatican does not specify. That seems very suspicious, especially since the Cardinal has not had his day in court to defend himself against these charges. If Pope Francis will not allow him to defend himself, it is either injustice on the Pope's part or even the possibility of defamation and calumny if the Pope knows the allegations are too flimsy for the Vatican to justify imposing sanctions on Cardinal Cipriani.
How would you like it if you were accused of a crime and had no way of defending yourself, or worse, you were already punished for the crime and you still don't know what you were punished for? Kafka wrote a novel about that called "The Trial." It is scary that the Pope can do this to anyone what Kafka attributed to the most sinister of regimes.
As reported by the Pillar, it is likely that Müller was let go due to financial improprieties rather than due to any disagreements with the pope.
Which was denied by Cardinal Mueller and again he never had a chance to defend himself against those allegations. If he took money from the Vatican, he should be tried in court and convicted of embezzlement. Otherwise its hearsay that should not be repeated by any news outlet more reputable than the National Enquirer. The truth is that Pope Francis told Cardinal Mueller to leave as his 5 year term was up and did not give him any reasons for the dismissal besides that. If there were reasons, then the Pope was unjust in not telling him what the reasons were, instead preferring others to leak information out which then the Pillar picked up.
We know how some people in the Vatican have ways to destroy certain people's reputation, like they tried to do that with Cardinal Pell, Cardinal Burke, and Libero Milone who tried to fix the Vatican finances as Auditor General but was fired and defamed instead.
If what the Pillar wrote was incorrect Müller could have sued them. They did not say he embezzled but that some of his department's money was moved inappropriately to avoid the work of Libero Milone in trying to straighten up Vatican finances.
Cardinal Mueller was dismissed on July 1, 2017 and Libero Milone was fired in June of that same year, which happens to be around the same time when Cardinal Pell was convicted in Australia. At that time Cardinal Becchiu was running the show and allegedly lying to the Pope Francis. So Pope Francis would fire Mueller at the same time when the watchdogs for the Vatican Milone and Pell were being conveniently removed, when Becchiu was calling the shots, the Cardinal who was eventually convicted for financial crimes, but not until 2024. The possibilities are that (1) Mueller was hated by Becchiu and falsely accused like Milone and Pell were or (2) Mueller was in league with Becchiu in committing financial crimes but then Pope Francis would have kept Mueller in place like he did Becchiu for many more years, even advancing him to Cardinal or (3) simply Mueller was removed because he was too conservative to allow for Pope Francis' liberal reforms to occur under his watch (and this is the most likely cause).
To sue someone in the U.S. requires a lot of money to pay for a lawyer. Cardinal Pell did not sue anyone either for the defamation he received from the press. That is really not a good argument for declaring someone innocent or guilty of an act.
I'm surprised that you regard firing a cash register clerk without reason as acceptable but firing a bishop as unjust! They seem equally unjust to me.
You are right. In all situations it would be an injustice, but it is a greater injustice for a bishop because the media will not be writing speculations about what the clerk did, so the loss of reputation among thousands of people will only affect the fired bishop.
Thanks Thomas for your generous explanation. I think I might say that the injustice was the same but the consequences were greater for the bishop, but that would be splitting hairs!
Again, I think this is a stretch of epic proportions. If you were a cardinal of the church who thought you were in good standing, and the Vatican informed you of restricted ministry, I struggle to understand how anyone would just sign the papers without any understanding of why that ministry was being restricted.
It’s like getting written up for an infraction at the office. Your boss presents you a piece of paper, and then you blindly sign it, knowing what’s on it, but later say that you have no idea why you were being punished. It strains credulity that this is actually how it played out.