Doubts about Vigan's accusations aside, Pope Francis needs a better response

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

It is hard to know what to think of the bombshell dropped by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, who released a scalding letter on Sunday (Aug. 26) calling on Pope Francis to resign. Viganò, the former Vatican ambassador to the United States, claims in the letter that Pope Francis knew that recently resigned Cardinal Theodore McCarrick abused seminarians when he was a bishop in New Jersey but nonetheless didn’t punish the cardinal....

Just as every diocese in the United States needs to do a full and transparent account of clerical sex abuse and each diocese’s response, so too the Vatican must disclose what it knew, when it knew and what it did or did not do. Nothing less will begin the restoration of credibility to the Catholic Church.

To read more:

https://religionnews.com/2018/08/28/doubts-about-viganos-accusations-aside-pope-francis-needs-a-better-response/

Further attempts at covering up can only end badly.

[MineralMan]

1. Nothing in there about Vigano's vile homophobic rants?

Which is worse - ignoring child sexual abuse or rank homophobia? Do we have to decide? Both are equally unconscionable. And yet, the author of the editorial at your link does not even mention Vigano's homophobia. Why is that, I wonder? It's common knowledge.

Both men are culpable in one way or another, it seems to me. Both exhibit the intolerance and evil so often present in the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church.

Why are we addressing this without addressing the rest? That's the question.

Once again, the real questions are not addressed - From where does the authority of the church to do vile things arise?

[guillaumeb]

2. The article addresses this one point.

And yes, Vigano's homophobia is intolerance.

As to why the author did not mention this, that is a question for the author.

In my view, the real question is:

Why do members of an organization feel more loyalty to an organization than to the larger society in which they exist?

Edited to add:

Could organizational loyalty be a form of tribalism?

[MineralMan]

4. The article addresses it poorly, then.

By ignoring a major factor, it becomes a poor excuse for an article at all. The dispute between Il Papa and Vigano is one of long standing. Worse, one man appears to condone sexual abuse of children through inaction, and the other blames the wrong people for that abuse. That is the real story, which was completely ignored by the author you quoted.

The article is deficient in many ways. I would not have posted it here.

[guillaumeb]

5. Perhaps you should address your criticism to the site. eom

[MineralMan]

7. It was not me who went to that site and brought the article here.

I do not use that website as a source for anything. I realize that it is one of your favorite sites. You frequently post articles from that place. In many cases, the articles are deeply, deeply flawed - something you rarely seem to notice.

So, you post them here, and I criticize them here, since that's where I encounter them.

[guillaumeb]

8. You find them to be flawed.

In this case, your criticism seems to be that the author did not right a definitive account of the issue in 1500 words. Feel free to demonstrate your own prowess with such an article.

[MineralMan]

10. I would be happy to write such an article.

My rates are $50/hour or an agreed-upon flat rate for the entire piece. I write for a living when I write what others want me to write. Here, I write for nothing, because what I write is my own choice.

Material omissions from articles like the one you posted are nothing less than dishonesty. The author ignores a major issue in this debate, and does so deliberately, since it is a well-known issue. That's just poor writing, by design.

I don't necessarily blame you for selecting that article to post. I assume you cannot tell the difference. I will, however criticize the author and the content of the article freely if you choose to post it here.

[guillaumeb]

15. Is this an example of your writing skill?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218291667

If so, I would suggest that you keep posting here instead.

By the way, when you wrote: "since it is an well-known issue.", you improperly substituted an for a. A grammatically correct response would have been "since it is a well-known issue.

Can one assume that you cannot tell the difference between the 2 articles?

[MineralMan]

18. Nope. When I write here, I occasionally leave a typo, although I do lightly

proofread. You see, I'm not being paid here. Now, that typo was probably caused by my inserting "well-known" after the original posting, and missing the issue with the article I used. That happens sometimes. I will correct that. So, thanks for pointing it out.

I write quickly on this website. When I write as a profession, I am far more careful. Even so, typos creep in sometimes. That's why publications have copy editors. Nobody always types perfectly.

In any case, thank you for pointing out my error, which has now been corrected.

[guillaumeb]

19. That translates to: I made a mistake.

Much easier to type.

I was happy to help you out.

[MineralMan]

21. I don't usually point out others' mistakes in posts.

I see you are a perfectionist, though. I'll keep that in mind as I read.

[trotsky]

3. Because that's what the church does, is cover up.

And the reason why? It is their sincere religious belief that their church (canon) law takes precedence over secular law.

That religious people such as yourself can't even acknowledge that fact is what makes the problem worse. And uniquely religious.

[MineralMan]

6. Both men described in that article are vile.

And that vileness is linked inextricably to the very religion of which they are leaders. The problem is religion. The problem is the largest organized denomination of Christianity. The article's author completely ignored the real question, in favor of discussing a dispute between two vile individuals.

Feh!

[guillaumeb]

9. What does "uniquely religious" mean? eom

[trotsky]

11. That you are reflexively covering for religion and don't even want it considered as a factor.

Because you, yourself are religious, and cannot tolerate dialog that is critical of religion.

[guillaumeb]

16. I can find no definition to support your interpretation.

Perhaps this is the issue here.

[trotsky]

23. That's too bad.

Plenty of other people don't seem to have a problem with it.

Maybe it's just you.

[Lordquinton]

13. He literally defined it.

This is intentional on your behalf.

[guillaumeb]

17. No, both of you are incorrect.

[Lordquinton]

20. What do you think it means?

[Major Nikon]

22. ...

[MineralMan]

14. Perhaps you're having trouble understanding his sentence.

I understand.

[Voltaire2]

12. The RCC is a criminal organization.