The issue is not about what McCarrick confessed, or not, to Pope Francis. It is about the status of a public discipline allegedly applied to the former and whether it was or wasn't lifted wholly or in part by the latter. There is also the prudential matter of whether a known abuser should have been deployed as Francis' main advisor in the appointment of American bishops. It is surely inadvisable to appoint someone with this record to any delicate position, regardless of their history of confession and repentance.
I don't think they really consider these things sins at all in any real sense. I think it is more like the Directors of a big Company who look for the best or fast fix to problems. It is an organisational approach rather than seeing it as a spiritual problem. An approach which is totally lacking in comapassion or sensitivity. An amoral approach. I think at the minute the Pope and his adivsors see their backs to the wall and have decided to adopt a new approach. Thier hand has been well caught in the candy jar so the new approach is to stonewall and defiance. Silence and a , 'Even if we did what buisness is it of yours?' , approach. The alternative is to be open and honest about the whole thing. But if they were the whole chabang would fall down and the liberal project be shattered. For of course most or all of the people most involved in this have been involved also in Pope Francis's project. So end of them end of project, end of Francis too. But of course Pope Fracnis could remain in office even if his moral horse was shot from under him. But it would be an impossible situation for him. I think this is the current situation. They are cornered rats and al lthey have to defend themselves now is the twin policies of silence and showing their teeth. I think this si what it boils down to. I hope I am wrong. I don't think I am.
L Keep praying ! I keep telling g myself "be at peace. God's got this" but it is very very hard. Like a frightening nail biter of a movie. Except it is real.
I noticed Cardinal Wuerl issued a statement saying he was very sorry about what he got up too. But my guess was that what he was really saying was that he was sorry he got caught out.
You're right. I think it possible that Pope Francis and Cardinal McCarrick had discussed the situation in China, possibly before he was elected Pope. Seeing the decline in the Church in formerly Christian countries, he could have started out his papacy with a real zeal to expand the Church's reach in China. Cardinal McCarrick could have sold him a strategy and was possibly the person he felt he could trust to get the ball rolling. Remember that McCarrick and US Jesuits were most likely his sources of information about the Church in the US. Vigano would have been far too orthodox and straitlaced for them. The Pope's comment to Vigano about Archbishop Chaput says a lot about his mindset, especially in respect of the Church in the US. McCarrick was his man for the job and the arrangement for the trip to China were already underway. Remember that Vigano told him that the CDF had a file on McCarrick; Cardinal Muller was the Prefect of the CDF, and Muller wasn't in his circle of friends. Former Archbishop and now Cardinal Ladaria was Secretary of the CDF at that time. Wouldn't Ladaria have known about Cardinal McCarrick? Pope Francis could have checked with him if he didn't trust Vigano or Muller. Pope Francis appointed Ladaria in Muller's place and promoted him to Cardinal. Incidentally, there appears to be a system whereby when someone is promoted to Bishop he gets to choose who will officiate at his consecration. It seems to be some kind of indicator of who he admires, who he might be considered aligned with, or who has helped advance his career. Ladaria's principal Consecrator was Cardinal Bertone. The co-Consecrators were Cardinal Levada and former Bishop, now Cardinal Paglia. Cardinal Levada, an American, had been an official in the CDF on the recommendation of Cardinal Bernardin. Here's a link to Levada's wiki page - have a look at the section about sexual abuse scandals in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Levada Anyway, enough with the speculation. I need to be more charitable in my comments about our hierarchy and remind myself about God's permissive will. For the sake of my own soul and peace of mind, I need to take a break from reading this stuff.
The Vatican thinks this scandal will destroy the church. The advisors are old Italians that have lost touch with reality. Many of the Vatican old guard have used the Church as a power structure. They lost the concept of saving souls. Many are possessed and demons are running amok. They think the laity will forget and things will be the same. The internet has made the world a much smaller place. You can't hide anything...the truth slowly drips out. They only have two options... stay the course or a clean sweep. NO ONE GIVES UP POWER THAT EASY. The church has to be cleansed...I also think many Vatican officials better watch what they eat. As long as the truth is hidden, the powers that be... will not be afraid to try to silence potential problems. This is much bigger then what we know. Sad Sad Sad
There seem to be many in the Vatican whose purpose is to destroy the Catholicc Church and it increasingly appears that this has been so for decades. As David Warren says in his latest post: 1). "Don't let the bastards drive you out of the Church" 2). "Whatever they do in Rome, I'm staying Catholic"
Yes the devil had us all in a complete stranglehold. I had no idea. Now wonder our seminaries and religious houses are empty and our lay folk were leaving us in droves, the devil was cutting off our very life blood. Talk about a spiritual war!! It's a wonder we are all still here.
I have been wondering if our children have left the Church because the sacraments they received were invalid because the priests or bishops conferring them were in the state of mortal sin when performing their duties. If, for example, Cardinal Bernardin (rumored to participate in satanic masses) bestowed the sacrament of Holy Orders on the bishop that bestowed the rite of Confirmation on my children, who pushes the LBGT agenda big time, was he legitimately representing Christ? If not there could be be several generations of people who received the sacraments from charlatans, therefore not having actually received the sacraments properly? My head hurts thinking about the implications of it all.
Well I can only hope God will not blame us for the faults of our leaders. There is an old saying in politics that people get the leaders they deserve. But we never voted for any of these awful people so I hope and trust God will not judge us for this. Perhpas on the other hand He will see it is not our fault and make it up to us in other ways. But clearly if the leadership is rotten the Church is in a bad way.
The Sacraments are valid irrespective of the state of the soul of the priest administering them. That was established very early in the Church. I can't remember the details, but it was in response to some heresy.
The efficacy of the Sacraments does not depend on the state of the priest. Thank God for that. Even were a priest to celebrate Mass in a state of mortal sin, so long as he follows the rubrics and uses the correct words, for example the words of consecration, he would confect the Eucharist. Same applies to confirmation. Even were a bishop a suspected heretic so long as he performed the rite correctly then the faithful can be confident that the persons were confirmed. I believe the term used is ex opere operator meaning “from the work worked”.
Yes, and even if all the rumours about Cardinal Bernardin are true, ordinations and consecrations are public events and carried out according to the rules of the Church, so the priests he ordained and the Bishops he consecrated are validly ordained and consecrated.
And to cover the present there is this addition in the Wiki history of Malachy's Pope prophecy (which goes on to mention the vague connection between Bergoglio choosing the name of Francis and Francis of Assisi's father's name being Pietro....but then, that's Wiki's liberal leaning showing up as well): Many analyses of the prophecy note that it is open to the interpretation that additional popes would come between the "glory of the olive" (Benedict) and Peter the Roman.[6][18] Some of those who were close to JPII (priests of Polish background and their "advisors" who are good interpreters of these times) seem to see this as a possibility due to the current things coming out of the Vatican.....esp. that all inclusive liturgy currently being accomplished by the chosen special group creating it in private....which I'm told is already a done deal, awaiting the right moment where most will just accept it without question. Some speculate that Francis could drop this "liturgy" on the faithful and then, due to age or "whatever"...hmmmm.... would die soon afterwards leaving the major split in the Church with such deliberate heresy in action and thus, due to such circumstances, leave the faithful without a Pope until that last pope from Malachy's order finally arrives to support the remnant, in the midst of the tribulation, after the Warning and into the New Era of the Divine Will with the purified Church. Many unknown and unimagined as yet "interventions" from heaven, during this time yet to come, will more than likely take care of this last predicted pope for these times, Peter the Roman, who should have the "spirit" of the first Pope, Peter, as John the Baptist had the spirit of Elijah (as he was alluded to in scripture). Just a possibility within the realm of speculation!
What about the validity of such rogue priests' ordinations/consecrations? There would be all of the cases of lying individuals with the pre-planned established evil intention of infiltrating the church for the purpose of a show of only those public external processes rather than authentic consecrations. No? I mean it's more than just the human words used at the time or the external rituals involved that would invalidate those kinds of "ordinations" it would seem.
If the bishop or priest does NOT have the intention to perform the sacrament validly, can the sacrament even be valid? In the memoirs of AA1025, there was something about how his superior taught him to outwardly make it seem that the sacrament is validly performed.
Lets not get crazy. Sacraments are still valid. But more importantly the Holy Father just became a "Lame Duck Pope". Nothing he says or does will be taken seriously... until everything is revealed and all evil men removed from church. If not removed then banished. I don't think Our Holy Father will try to change anything liturgical. He doesn't have the full backing of the church. The things he said and did before this disaster, could be accepted but was hard to swallow. Now he has lost all legitimacy. I still respect and follow Our Church and Our Holy Father...but as long as they are protecting evil people and the demons are running amok in the Vatican. Everything has to be taken with grain of salt. May Gods Will be Done
