> like writing about Cardinal Pell going to jail and avoiding any mention of the hatred of Vatican officials
In the case of Cardinal Pell, I think it was entirely a homegrown Australian conspiracy that accused him rather than a Vatican conspiracy, but certainly omitting the Vatican-finances backstory would mean that we would not realize h…
> like writing about Cardinal Pell going to jail and avoiding any mention of the hatred of Vatican officials
In the case of Cardinal Pell, I think it was entirely a homegrown Australian conspiracy that accused him rather than a Vatican conspiracy, but certainly omitting the Vatican-finances backstory would mean that we would not realize how much we lost.
I am slightly tired, though, of nearly all sides seeming to sometimes believe that "rules are for *other* people". The Pope sometimes does it, the credibly accused do it, the guilty are *of course* found to have ignored probably every rule in the book, the "we don't even know what they were accused of and maybe they don't even know either" sometimes do it, and sometimes the non-credibly accused or the innocent are found to have done it. So I can't even assume "wow, this guy did not do what he was told, therefore he is a supervillain" because not-following-the-rules is not *consistently* a distinguishing characteristic, but it's supposed to be.
My biggest point is that if someone is accused of something, let all of it come out in court. Cardinal Pell was actually lucky, because even though he spent time in jail, at least his reputation was exonerated by the appeals court. If he was accused of those crimes by a Vatican court, we would still be debating in the Pillar commentary section whether he did it or not. Saint Francis de Sales wrote that destroying someone's reputation is like killing them. If Cardinal CIpriani is guilty, let us see the proof against him like with Father Maciel or Cardinal McCarrick. If not, then to me he is innocent until proven guilty.
Thomas, my friend, you are like a dog with a bone on this. But I ask you, sir: Can you cite the provision of canon law that obligates the Vatican to publicly release the “why” of disciplinary measures to the Church Universal?
The Vatican is not the American Department of Justice. The procedural norms that govern American criminal law do not govern here. I am baffled as to why you seem to think you are entitled to know the details of allegations, when radical transparency has never been the practice of the church to begin with.
You seem to have a beef with Pope Francis. And that’s fine; he’s not exactly at the top of my Most Favorite Pontiff list either. But this is such an odd argument to hang your hat upon with this much vigor.
Are we entitled to know? No I don't think so. At least not in cases that don't involve public scandal. Is Cipriani entitled to know the charges and evidence against him? Yes that's a matter of justice. It appears Cipriani hasn't been been given his day in court and that's a problem.
Also, I'll note that actions have consequences. If the Vatican chooses not to make the information public when at least some degree making the punishment public, people are left to draw their own conclusions. We're supposed to just believe the punishment is just and at the same time just believe that the Cardinal's feud had nothing to do with all of this?
Last week, my bishop released a note to the diocese, announcing that a traditionalist order of nuns in a neighboring city is being suppressed by order of the DDF. We know nothing beyond the order of suppression. Should we assume that these nuns had a personal vendetta leveled against them by Cardinal Fernandez or Pope Francis?
Part of being a humble Catholic in union with the Holy See is that we trust that our senior ecclesial leaders will perform God‘s will on earth without giving us every dotted I and crossed T. Humans are fallible, and the present moment in some ways underscores that fallibility. But I am uncomfortable with the idea that a lack of court transcripts MUST THEREFORE imply wrongdoing by the Holy Father.
Especially given that Cipriani has already publicly lied about the situation. Again, the odds that he willingly signed a document restricting his ministry with no questions whatsoever as to why that ministry was being restricted, beggars belief. Given that he has already proved deceitful, I am less inclined to believe in conspiracy theories about Argentinian clerical politics than I am in the more common case coming out of the DDF, which is an attempt to preserve the dignity of the accused by being quiet about cases, while offering a discreet ministerial penalty. If anything, the Cipriani situation feels an awful lot like the McCarrick situation, in terms of how these senior churchmen have comported themselves.
Again, lying is not the same as abuse and when I sign a subpoena handed to me does not mean I admit to committing anything wrong, I just acknowledge receiving the subpoena. As Mr. Karazamov noted, it is an injustice for Cardinal Cipriani to not know what he is accused of. Even the Sanhedrin and Pilate let Jesus Christ know what he was convicted of, even if it was false.
All I would like is for the Pillar to put more detail into their reporting about Cardinal Cipriani. In their reporting on the Syro-Malabar Church controversy regarding the change in liturgy, the Pillar included a backstory about controversial real estate investments done by the former Major Archbishop that may play a part in why the conflict is so heated. Real estate and who the priest faces during Mass seems unrelated, but the Pillar rightfully took it into account.
Reporting about the Cipriani-Bergoglio feud in CELAM could be an important component of the story that good journalists should report on. It is like reporting about Trump being accused of financial crimes in a New York court and failing to report about any links between the prosecutors, the Biden administration, and the DNC.
Except that it isn’t. Other media sources now say that Cipriani has been accused, credibly, of sexual abuse. Had The Pillar focused on Argentinian clerical politics, it would have missed the real story while impinging upon the dignity of the Holy Father. I don’t know why you’re carrying water for Cipriani at this point.
What does "credibly accused" mean? You are innocent until proven guilty. Cardinal Pell was also "credibly accused" and found innocent. There was another Cardinal, Henryk Gulbinowicz of Wroclaw, Poland, who was "credibly accused" and sanctioned to not perform any public ministry. He just happened to be the most vehemently anti-Communist bishop in Poland.it turned out after his death that all the accusations came from men who were found in Polish Communist secret police archives to be agents who purposely made up stories which the Church investigators initially fell for. Like with Pell, it is the civil investigations that often reveal the truth. I hope Cardinal Cipriani has his day in court where rules of evidence will determine whether he is guilty or not. Nonetheless, while Cardinal Cipriani, a rival to the Pope, is penalized, Father Rupnik, who the Pope likes, is working without any restrictions in Slovenia after raping several religious sisters. Just seems suspicious.
It seems to me that your motivating theory here is corruption by the current pope. I see no evidence of this, relative to Cipriani. Ongoing discussion, therefore, strikes me as futile. Peace and blessings to you, though.
This is sort of funny actually. You act like this is happening in a vacuum where there isn't a history of well connected senior prelates getting preferential treatment. In the absence of information, the logical thing to wonder is that it's likely this one is like the last several
> like writing about Cardinal Pell going to jail and avoiding any mention of the hatred of Vatican officials
In the case of Cardinal Pell, I think it was entirely a homegrown Australian conspiracy that accused him rather than a Vatican conspiracy, but certainly omitting the Vatican-finances backstory would mean that we would not realize how much we lost.
I am slightly tired, though, of nearly all sides seeming to sometimes believe that "rules are for *other* people". The Pope sometimes does it, the credibly accused do it, the guilty are *of course* found to have ignored probably every rule in the book, the "we don't even know what they were accused of and maybe they don't even know either" sometimes do it, and sometimes the non-credibly accused or the innocent are found to have done it. So I can't even assume "wow, this guy did not do what he was told, therefore he is a supervillain" because not-following-the-rules is not *consistently* a distinguishing characteristic, but it's supposed to be.
My biggest point is that if someone is accused of something, let all of it come out in court. Cardinal Pell was actually lucky, because even though he spent time in jail, at least his reputation was exonerated by the appeals court. If he was accused of those crimes by a Vatican court, we would still be debating in the Pillar commentary section whether he did it or not. Saint Francis de Sales wrote that destroying someone's reputation is like killing them. If Cardinal CIpriani is guilty, let us see the proof against him like with Father Maciel or Cardinal McCarrick. If not, then to me he is innocent until proven guilty.
Thomas, my friend, you are like a dog with a bone on this. But I ask you, sir: Can you cite the provision of canon law that obligates the Vatican to publicly release the “why” of disciplinary measures to the Church Universal?
The Vatican is not the American Department of Justice. The procedural norms that govern American criminal law do not govern here. I am baffled as to why you seem to think you are entitled to know the details of allegations, when radical transparency has never been the practice of the church to begin with.
You seem to have a beef with Pope Francis. And that’s fine; he’s not exactly at the top of my Most Favorite Pontiff list either. But this is such an odd argument to hang your hat upon with this much vigor.
Are we entitled to know? No I don't think so. At least not in cases that don't involve public scandal. Is Cipriani entitled to know the charges and evidence against him? Yes that's a matter of justice. It appears Cipriani hasn't been been given his day in court and that's a problem.
Also, I'll note that actions have consequences. If the Vatican chooses not to make the information public when at least some degree making the punishment public, people are left to draw their own conclusions. We're supposed to just believe the punishment is just and at the same time just believe that the Cardinal's feud had nothing to do with all of this?
Last week, my bishop released a note to the diocese, announcing that a traditionalist order of nuns in a neighboring city is being suppressed by order of the DDF. We know nothing beyond the order of suppression. Should we assume that these nuns had a personal vendetta leveled against them by Cardinal Fernandez or Pope Francis?
Part of being a humble Catholic in union with the Holy See is that we trust that our senior ecclesial leaders will perform God‘s will on earth without giving us every dotted I and crossed T. Humans are fallible, and the present moment in some ways underscores that fallibility. But I am uncomfortable with the idea that a lack of court transcripts MUST THEREFORE imply wrongdoing by the Holy Father.
Especially given that Cipriani has already publicly lied about the situation. Again, the odds that he willingly signed a document restricting his ministry with no questions whatsoever as to why that ministry was being restricted, beggars belief. Given that he has already proved deceitful, I am less inclined to believe in conspiracy theories about Argentinian clerical politics than I am in the more common case coming out of the DDF, which is an attempt to preserve the dignity of the accused by being quiet about cases, while offering a discreet ministerial penalty. If anything, the Cipriani situation feels an awful lot like the McCarrick situation, in terms of how these senior churchmen have comported themselves.
Again, lying is not the same as abuse and when I sign a subpoena handed to me does not mean I admit to committing anything wrong, I just acknowledge receiving the subpoena. As Mr. Karazamov noted, it is an injustice for Cardinal Cipriani to not know what he is accused of. Even the Sanhedrin and Pilate let Jesus Christ know what he was convicted of, even if it was false.
All I would like is for the Pillar to put more detail into their reporting about Cardinal Cipriani. In their reporting on the Syro-Malabar Church controversy regarding the change in liturgy, the Pillar included a backstory about controversial real estate investments done by the former Major Archbishop that may play a part in why the conflict is so heated. Real estate and who the priest faces during Mass seems unrelated, but the Pillar rightfully took it into account.
Reporting about the Cipriani-Bergoglio feud in CELAM could be an important component of the story that good journalists should report on. It is like reporting about Trump being accused of financial crimes in a New York court and failing to report about any links between the prosecutors, the Biden administration, and the DNC.
Except that it isn’t. Other media sources now say that Cipriani has been accused, credibly, of sexual abuse. Had The Pillar focused on Argentinian clerical politics, it would have missed the real story while impinging upon the dignity of the Holy Father. I don’t know why you’re carrying water for Cipriani at this point.
See: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/261833/prominent-cardinal-denies-allegations-of-sexual-abuse-that-led-to-disciplinary-measures
What does "credibly accused" mean? You are innocent until proven guilty. Cardinal Pell was also "credibly accused" and found innocent. There was another Cardinal, Henryk Gulbinowicz of Wroclaw, Poland, who was "credibly accused" and sanctioned to not perform any public ministry. He just happened to be the most vehemently anti-Communist bishop in Poland.it turned out after his death that all the accusations came from men who were found in Polish Communist secret police archives to be agents who purposely made up stories which the Church investigators initially fell for. Like with Pell, it is the civil investigations that often reveal the truth. I hope Cardinal Cipriani has his day in court where rules of evidence will determine whether he is guilty or not. Nonetheless, while Cardinal Cipriani, a rival to the Pope, is penalized, Father Rupnik, who the Pope likes, is working without any restrictions in Slovenia after raping several religious sisters. Just seems suspicious.
It seems to me that your motivating theory here is corruption by the current pope. I see no evidence of this, relative to Cipriani. Ongoing discussion, therefore, strikes me as futile. Peace and blessings to you, though.
This is sort of funny actually. You act like this is happening in a vacuum where there isn't a history of well connected senior prelates getting preferential treatment. In the absence of information, the logical thing to wonder is that it's likely this one is like the last several