If Bishop Zanchetta were a pastor and his bishop moved him around like Pope Francis did, Bishop Zanchetta would be laicized and Pope Francis would be removed from office. Or is this why Bishop Stika stays in place, because he has not done anything the pope would not himself do?
And, like the former president, Stika becomes bolder because he is protected. Many complaints have been made to the nuncio and the Vatican, with no acknowledgement and no result. His latest grab is to make the schools, which received PPP money from the government (after a delay because the diocese held on to it), pony up 25% of what they received for proper PPP purposes (which has probably been spent) to him, so he can pay for his overspending.
This is why Vos Estis is useless. Friends of the accused bishop can decide he's innocent, no matter what he has done or how much evidence there is. So no matter what they find, it's probably a sign that the bishop was either liked or disliked by his peers. I doubt the courts would have convicted Zanchetta if the evidence hadn't been solid. From here it looks like Rome is trying to tamper with the evidence after the fact.
When Archbishop Hebda did the investigation of Bishop Hoeppner it was not useless, but that is because Archbishop Hebda is such a good archbishop. The strength of any reform will depend on the people implementing it.
"I doubt the courts would have convicted Zanchetta if the evidence hadn't been solid."
Cardinal Pell was convicted of sexual abuse of minors in Australia, only to have the verdict overturned at a later appeal. The difference is there was no protection afforded to the Cardinal at the time by the Holy See, which is how it should be.
The scandals of abuse occurring at many levels of the Church is sickening and disheartening. Bishop Zanchetta getting special treatment is certainly not a good look for Pope Francis.
I think one of the things that have might motivated the Pope to do what he did was he believed people are innocent until proven guilty. He’s very tolerant and “who is he to judge”.
I do not mean this in a negative or sarcastic way. While I do not always agree with him we can not make a judgement against him either. I believe he is a good man but he is a human being and will not always say or do the right thing. Judgement is for God.
Zanchetta was convicted, but the bishops have still not released their investigation. They know he is guilty, but he still gets special treatment because he is chummy with the pope. Francis published a book defaming victims of Fr. Grassi, post conviction in a court of law, in an attempt to get him a lighter sentence. Francis had the defamatory book delivered to the judge himself, as the judge recounted in an interview for the documentary "Code of Silence." Francis cares nothing for victims. The only time he acts against abusers is when they are his political enemies or the media is forcing his hand.
At best, he’s grossly negligent when it comes to judging character. But I don’t think it’s negligence. Danny already mentioned the Grassi affair. There are many others.
Consider, for one, that Cd. Daneels was caught on tape covering up for a bishop who abused his own nephew. Daneels told the nephew that he should consider his own culpability. Yet, after all of that, Francis personally appointed Daneels to the Synod on the Family.
Zanchetta, Chilean bishops, Puerto Rican bishop, US bishops who "resign" early... It's like we don't learn. It seems thisis one of those demons that can only be cast out by fasting and prayer.
This case has some particularly troubling aspects.
The greatest virtue of the current pope is the commitment to transparency and good governance. This, unfortunately, appears to bring that into question. Since the accused has a close personal connexion to the pope, greater transparency is required to provide confidence that papal policy is being enacted. This takes a great deal of courage, but the consequence of not doing so will cause greater damage to the proclamation of the Gospel.
Another concerning aspect is the time frames. People have been putting in complaints for years, and the Vatican bureaucracy seems to only have received them years later. And since receiving them, it has been almost four years. The man has been convicted by a civil court and the Vatican is still waiting. It appears that for some, investigation by the curia is a way to memory hole complaints. It gives the correct impression that the curia is not interested in investigating its own and the process is but a sop to quieten the masses.
I appreciate that it takes a long time to change the culture of an organisation, particularly one such as the curia, but such a high profile case is an opportunity to provide the direction needed. The Pope intervening and ensuring that Vos Estis was followed and demonstrating transparency would have provided a clear signal to the curia that they need to line up.
The Zanchetta scandal - and Francis' central role in it - is a complete disgrace.
It speaks volumes that the mainstream media will not touch it with a barge pole.
They are happy to let Francis the wrecker continue in office (as compared to Benedict the builder), and obviously do not care to run any form of 'negative' stories concerning homosexuality.
If Bishop Zanchetta were a pastor and his bishop moved him around like Pope Francis did, Bishop Zanchetta would be laicized and Pope Francis would be removed from office. Or is this why Bishop Stika stays in place, because he has not done anything the pope would not himself do?
And, like the former president, Stika becomes bolder because he is protected. Many complaints have been made to the nuncio and the Vatican, with no acknowledgement and no result. His latest grab is to make the schools, which received PPP money from the government (after a delay because the diocese held on to it), pony up 25% of what they received for proper PPP purposes (which has probably been spent) to him, so he can pay for his overspending.
Zanchetta will be one of many things to trash the legacy of Pope Francis' pontificate in future, likely after his death.
Mt 23:1-2
This is why Vos Estis is useless. Friends of the accused bishop can decide he's innocent, no matter what he has done or how much evidence there is. So no matter what they find, it's probably a sign that the bishop was either liked or disliked by his peers. I doubt the courts would have convicted Zanchetta if the evidence hadn't been solid. From here it looks like Rome is trying to tamper with the evidence after the fact.
When Archbishop Hebda did the investigation of Bishop Hoeppner it was not useless, but that is because Archbishop Hebda is such a good archbishop. The strength of any reform will depend on the people implementing it.
Excellent point.
And this “pontifical secret” BS is … well, BS.
"I doubt the courts would have convicted Zanchetta if the evidence hadn't been solid."
Cardinal Pell was convicted of sexual abuse of minors in Australia, only to have the verdict overturned at a later appeal. The difference is there was no protection afforded to the Cardinal at the time by the Holy See, which is how it should be.
The scandals of abuse occurring at many levels of the Church is sickening and disheartening. Bishop Zanchetta getting special treatment is certainly not a good look for Pope Francis.
I think one of the things that have might motivated the Pope to do what he did was he believed people are innocent until proven guilty. He’s very tolerant and “who is he to judge”.
I do not mean this in a negative or sarcastic way. While I do not always agree with him we can not make a judgement against him either. I believe he is a good man but he is a human being and will not always say or do the right thing. Judgement is for God.
Zanchetta was convicted, but the bishops have still not released their investigation. They know he is guilty, but he still gets special treatment because he is chummy with the pope. Francis published a book defaming victims of Fr. Grassi, post conviction in a court of law, in an attempt to get him a lighter sentence. Francis had the defamatory book delivered to the judge himself, as the judge recounted in an interview for the documentary "Code of Silence." Francis cares nothing for victims. The only time he acts against abusers is when they are his political enemies or the media is forcing his hand.
> "Who is he to judge"
Canon 1442: "The Roman Pontiff is the supreme judge for the whole catholic world."
I get not judging people's hearts, but when a crime is alleged to have happened judges gotta judge.
At best, he’s grossly negligent when it comes to judging character. But I don’t think it’s negligence. Danny already mentioned the Grassi affair. There are many others.
Consider, for one, that Cd. Daneels was caught on tape covering up for a bishop who abused his own nephew. Daneels told the nephew that he should consider his own culpability. Yet, after all of that, Francis personally appointed Daneels to the Synod on the Family.
It’s shocking.
Zanchetta, Chilean bishops, Puerto Rican bishop, US bishops who "resign" early... It's like we don't learn. It seems thisis one of those demons that can only be cast out by fasting and prayer.
This case has some particularly troubling aspects.
The greatest virtue of the current pope is the commitment to transparency and good governance. This, unfortunately, appears to bring that into question. Since the accused has a close personal connexion to the pope, greater transparency is required to provide confidence that papal policy is being enacted. This takes a great deal of courage, but the consequence of not doing so will cause greater damage to the proclamation of the Gospel.
Another concerning aspect is the time frames. People have been putting in complaints for years, and the Vatican bureaucracy seems to only have received them years later. And since receiving them, it has been almost four years. The man has been convicted by a civil court and the Vatican is still waiting. It appears that for some, investigation by the curia is a way to memory hole complaints. It gives the correct impression that the curia is not interested in investigating its own and the process is but a sop to quieten the masses.
I appreciate that it takes a long time to change the culture of an organisation, particularly one such as the curia, but such a high profile case is an opportunity to provide the direction needed. The Pope intervening and ensuring that Vos Estis was followed and demonstrating transparency would have provided a clear signal to the curia that they need to line up.
The Zanchetta scandal - and Francis' central role in it - is a complete disgrace.
It speaks volumes that the mainstream media will not touch it with a barge pole.
They are happy to let Francis the wrecker continue in office (as compared to Benedict the builder), and obviously do not care to run any form of 'negative' stories concerning homosexuality.