Posted on 09/03/2018 9:36:20 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
August 30, 2018
His Holiness, Pope Francis
Vatican City
Your Holiness:
You have said that you seek “a more incisive female presence in the Church,” and that “women are capable of seeing things with a different angle from [men], with a different eye. Women are able to pose questions that we men are not able to understand.”
We write to you, Holy Father, to pose questions that need answers.
We are Catholic women deeply committed to our faith and profoundly grateful for Church teachings, the Sacraments, and the many good bishops and priests who have blessed our lives.
Our hearts are broken, our faith tested, by the escalating crisis engulfing our beloved Church. We are angry, betrayed and disillusioned. The pain and suffering of the victims never ends, as each news cycle brings more horrific revelations of sexual abuse, sexual misconduct, cover-ups, and deceit—even at the Church’s highest levels.
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s recent statement impels us to reach out to you directly for answers. His testimony accuses you, Holy Father, and highly placed cardinals of turning a blind eye to former Cardinal McCarrick’s egregious behavior, and promoting this predator as a global spokesman and spiritual leader. Is this true?
These are devastating allegations. As USCCB President Cardinal Daniel D. DiNardo recently stated, “The questions raised deserve answers that are conclusive and based on evidence.” We agree.
Several crucial questions raised by Archbishop Viganò’s statement, however, require neither lengthy investigations nor physical evidence. They require only your direct response, Holy Father. When reporters questioned you recently about Archbishop Viganò’s charges, you replied, “I will not say a single word on this.” You told reporters to “read the statement carefully and make your own judgment.”
To your hurting flock, Pope Francis, your words are inadequate. They sting, reminiscent of the clericalism you so recently condemned. We need leadership, truth, and transparency. We, your flock, deserve your answers now.
Specifically, we humbly implore you to answer the following questions, as the answers are surely known to you. Archbishop Viganò says that in June 2013 he conveyed to you this message (in essence) about then-Cardinal McCarrick:
“He corrupted generations of seminarians and priests and Pope Benedict ordered him to withdraw to a life of prayer and penance.”
Holy Father, in your letter to the People of God on the scandals, you wrote: “An awareness of sin helps us to acknowledge the errors, the crimes and the wounds caused in the past and allows us, in the present, to be more open and committed along a journey of renewed conversion.” That’s why we expect you, our Holy Father, to be honest with us.
Please do not turn from us. You’ve committed yourself to changing clerical ways in the Church. That a cardinal would prey on seminarians is abhorrent. We need to know we can trust you to be honest with us about what happened. The victims who have suffered so greatly need to know they can trust you. Families, who will be the source of the Church’s renewal, need to know we can trust you, and thus trust the Church.
Please do not keep us at arm’s length on these questions. We are faithful daughters of the Church who need the truth so we can help rebuild. We are not second-class Catholics to be brushed off while bishops and cardinals handle matters privately. We have a right to know. We have a right to your answers.
We are wives, mothers, single women, consecrated women, and religious sisters.
We are the mothers and sisters of your priests, seminarians, future priests and religious. We are the Church’s lay leaders, and the mothers of the next generation.
We are professors in your seminaries, and leaders in Catholic chanceries and institutions.
We are theologians, evangelists, missionaries and founders of Catholic apostolates.
We are the people who sacrifice to fund the Church’s good work.
We are the backbone of Catholic parishes, schools, and dioceses.
We are the hands, the feet, and the heart of the Church.
In short, we are the Church, every bit as much as the cardinals and bishops around you.
Holy Father, we are the “incisive presence” the Church needs, and we need your answers.
With love for Christ and the Church,
Mary Rice Hasson, JD
Kate O'Beirne
Fellow in Catholic Studies
Director, Catholic Women’s Forum
Ethics and Public Policy Center
Sarah Bartel
Consultant for Marriage and Family Life
Archdiocese of Seattle
Author, Speaker, Radio Show Host
Kari Beckman
Executive Director and Founder,
Regina Caeli K-12 Programs
Executive Director and Founder,
Veritatis Splendor Consortiums
... and (as of Sept 3)
`
nope....you didn't set it up this way apparently. the caucus designation is not in the title.
nope....you didn't set it up this way apparently. the caucus designation is not in the title.
Your canon lawyer evidently commented on "judging" the pope--- right? Judging? --- as in a canonical tribunal or appellate process? --- which is not an available remedy; vs. advising, admonishing, questioning and correcting, which has been done through the ages right to the present day, and is presented in Canon Law (Canon 212) as not only a right but, in some cases, a duty.
Why don't you send my comments to this Canon Lawyer source, and see what s/he says? I am sure she will add that there is an explicit canonical duty to take advice, admonition and criticism to one's sacred pastors, and all the way to the Pope when souls are at risk. Canon 212.
Plus, I am sure it will be recognized that popes can be, and have been, judged by successor popes. Ask this Canon Lawyer.
I am sure a supposed "pope" can be found to be an anti-pope if they were elected by an illicit or defective conclave. It has happened approx. 37 times that anti-popes were deposed.
Your problem is that the Canon Lawyer apparently answered a specific question about "judging" a pope --- i.e. canonical trial of a present, sitting, valid pope --- which is not possible, but did NOT answer a question about admonishing a pope, or deposing an illicit anti-pope who is not, and never was, a pope at all.
If you don't ask the relevant question, you don't get a relevant answer.
Patiently I must repeat: on all things Catholic, don't tell us. Ask us. Otherwise you are, sad to say, quite OOWBAR: out of whack beyond all recognition.
You sound like the ex-jock on sports talk radio who asserts a fan cannot be as knowledgeable about the game because the fan didn't play.
To that I say nonsense.
My observations on Roman Catholicism are pulled primarily from Roman Catholic sources. Roman Catholics don't like it when those sources are cited. To use the common term for it today....they becomed "triggered" when confronted with what their denomination espouses.....I've found a good number don't even know what their denomination espouses.
You can ask your leadership all you want....however, I see no obligation in Canon 212 for them to answer you.
Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.
§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.
§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_PU.HTM
But here is another opinion from a ROMAN CATHOLIC source...in other words, this is not my opinion....it's one of your fellow Roman Catholics who wrote this and from a source I see cited often on FR by RCs.
******************************************
The answer is that Church Militant has a zero-tolerance policy on papal criticism in the public sphere:
It is our judgment that most Catholics should neither read nor have easy access to articles and essays that could be judged critical of the Pope. Such writings should be published and reserved for those capable of engaging them without risk of damage to their faith in the Church and the Vicar of Christ. We make these recommendations for the same reasons that we discourage people from visiting sedevacantist and pornography web sites: they are potential occasions of sin, from which masters of the spiritual life are unanimous in their recommendation of “flight” rather than “fight.” They lead people to think or do things they would not otherwise have thought or done and, almost without exception, those things are harmful to one’s spiritual life. At least one priest has described web sites containing such articles and encouraging such themes as “ecclesiastical porn” …We call it “spiritual pornography.”
[H]ow is a Catholic better off believing bad things about the Church, whether those things be true or false, and how should a Catholic respond to those things? If someone believes that the Catholic Church has become a bad place to be, what is that person supposed to do? Join another Church? Break away from the visible, corrupt Catholic Church and form an alternative, allegedly more faithful version of the Catholic Church (see CMRI and SSPX)? Leave the Catholic Church and join a more faithful Evangelical Christian assembly? Give up on religion entirely and go the “I’m spiritual but not religious” crowd? Organize “Recognize and Resist” movements within the Catholic Church and relentlessly attack Her from the inside? Seek Church reform via some kind of coup d’etat and replace current leadership with … what?
None of these responses is authentically Catholic. Each is facilitated and encouraged by papal criticism almost indistinguishable from what is found in the writings of virulent antiCatholic apologists…
https://onepeterfive.com/can-a-catholic-criticize-the-pope/
It does not have an anti-Catholic tone, content or intention in the least. If I were an infected, overheated anti-Catholic I would find it much, much too constructive.
`
Church Militant headline: "Pope Francis Must Resign: ‘A Conspiracy of Silence’"
They've been calling for Pope Francis to resign ever since the Vigano Testimony was published.
Try to keep up, OK?
In matters Catholic: ask us, don't tell us.
Then there's been another flip-flop in Roman Catholicism....honestly, ya'll have more flip-flops than the beach during the summer.
************
ChurchMilitant.TV will not engage in public criticism of the Pope. Period.
http://www.churchmilitant.tv/faq/papalcriticism.pdf
That's not putting down you personally. It's actually bigger than any of us. But in your case, you're actually running as hard as you can to catch up to where were were 50 years ago. Stuff that happened last week goes right over your head.
We are in an unprecedented situation because Señor Bergoglio has actually come out against the Papal Magisterium. We have never before had a pope who was overtly outside of, and opposed to, the Papal Magisterium. Even antipopes, generally speaking, didn't do that.
Since you seem to be perpetually waist-deep in "The Papacy in Theory and Practice," look up how the 37 antipopes were deposed, and then get back to us, OK?
You are failing to see the difference between "advising," "admonishing" or "correcting" vs. "judging."
There is no place for a canonical trial, and hence a judging of the pope, except by another pope. Arguably, Pope Emeritus Benedict could preside over such a trial. Or possibly Pope Francis could die, and then be tried and judged posthumously by his successor.
However, there is nothing on God's good earth to prevent both the laity and the clergy advising, admonishing and correcting the pope, as happened repeatedly in Scripture. This is our right, as well as sometimes our duty, under Canon 212.
...again, is to ASK us what we can and can't do, rather than TELL us what we can and can't do. You would save yourself frequent awkward moments.
Another possibility, and to my mind the best one, would be a determination that Señor Bergoglio is not the valid pope, and therefore is to be judged as well as deposed.
There were at least 37 deposed in this way from 217 AD to 1439 AD.
I wrote up some reasons why Pope Francis' attempted accession to the papacy may have been invalid.
Ask your fave Canon Lawyer. If you a want two opinions, ask two!
However, you're comment regarding churchmilitant saying "Church Militant does NOT have -- at this point --- a zero tolerance policy on papal criticism." seems to be in error as I demonstrated.....or else, like so much in Roman Catholicism, they've flip-flopped.
You don't seem to deal with that very well.
It's no wonder you're chronically perturbed.
You could reduce your discomfort if, in matters which are outside of your ecclesial chops, you would ask us, don't tell us.
It's just "What dinosaur footprint??? Where is it???"
Please tell us where you received your degree in canon law from?
Can't wait to see.
I remind you....you are merely one of a billion or so lay Roman Catholics. You have no formal training nor can you espouse formal Roman Catholic doctrine nor can you interpret Scripture as you are not a priest.
To be blunt....you really have no valid opinion to offer that matters to your leadership.
I wrote up some reasons why Pope Francis' attempted accession to the papacy may have been invalid.
Of which one of your fellow Roman Catholics says is nothing but mere assertion without facts to back the claim.
There were at least 37 deposed in this way from 217 AD to 1439 AD.
You presume that Canon Law has not changed. As we've seen with all things Roman Catholic there has been change. I'm willing to be there have been major changes.
Sure. I see it all over Free Republic everyday.
I'm citing the opinion of a Roman Catholic lawyer.....what are you citing?
Your uneducated, unimportant opinion??
You don't seem to realize your statement has been rebutted.
You don't seem to deal with that very well.
You could reduce your discomfort if, in matters which are outside of your ecclesial chops, you would ask us, don't tell us.
What? So I could hear your conspiracy theories about if Francis is not a legit pope?
Or maybe more of your untrained understanding of Roman Catholicism?? Remember....you are not a priest. You have no formal training in Roman Catholicism.
Tsk.
One can hardly miss the myriad of articles posted by Roman Catholics on the topic.
To say I'm "way out of my depth" is a very condescending attitude, mrs d. You presume that false argument that only Roman Catholics can criticize Roman Catholicism.
Sheer. Utter. Nonsense.
If your "logic" were true then we wouldn't be able to point out where Mormons or Muslims are wrong, or say why liberal thinking is wrong, etc, etc, etc.
Rome has a serious problem within its leadership they are unwilling to deal with. However, based on the articles I've been reading there doesn't appear to be much they can do. Rome's leadership has surrounded itself with a lot of rules/laws/canons to protect itself.
Again, I remind you.....you are just one insignificant lay member of Roman Catholicism with no formal training at a Roman Catholic seminary. You're not a RC Canon lawyer. So to employ your line of thinking....you're way out of your depth here.
Rome is in serious need, and has been, of a Second Reformation. Perhaps this time Rome will get it right.
Truth hurts doesn’t it?
(rolls eyes)
Tell me about parrhesia, OK?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.