Pope Francis, Catholics, and Christians in the news worldwide
BG9 said:
Ironically, in many local US jurisdictions the wedding would not be recognized as legal. The Pope needs to be officially registered in those places before being allowed to perform weddings.
As noted in the quoted portion, "They have been civilly married since 2010."
Plus, they were in the air so it’s like being at sea: ship’s/plane’s captain has authority. One could argue (I’m guessing) that as head of Vatican City, a nation-State in its own right, he has this authority.
[but don’t pay attention to me, I’m currently flying on endone]
nohero said:
BG9 said:
Ironically, in many local US jurisdictions the wedding would not be recognized as legal. The Pope needs to be officially registered in those places before being allowed to perform weddings.
As noted in the quoted portion, "They have been civilly married since 2010."
My point being even though he is the head of a major religion and obviously ordained him marrying anyone in some of our local jurisdictions would be legally disallowed. Bureaucracy.
joanne said:
Plus, they were in the air so it’s like being at sea: ship’s/plane’s captain has authority. One could argue (I’m guessing) that as head of Vatican City, a nation-State in its own right, he has this authority.
[but don’t pay attention to me, I’m currently flying on endone]
Not if done in NYC or many other localities.
Article from NY Times Today About Continuing Controversey:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/world/americas/pope-sex-abuse-chile.html
Copihue said:
This is a story of one of the accusers who says that not only was he present when he was being abused, but Barros was kissing and hugging Karadime (the abuser) with all the children watching. http://www.latercera.com/noticia/victima-karadima-critica-perdon-del-papa-los-obispos-encubridores-ahi-siguen/ Pope Francis believes Barros, he came to also burnish his image, and some people are very upset, but most people are crazy happy that he is here. The government had to declare a holiday in the area of Santiago, and since half the population lives in Santiago and government is centralized in Santiago and private businesses can't do any work without calling Santiago, today was a holiday for most folks.
A lot of Chileans are out-of-their-minds. A large percentage of people hate the President Elect, because he is center right and they discard the good things that he did which brought all sorts of positive news throughout the world: rescued the miners and managed the response to the 2010 earthquake. It's as if they want no one to get too far ahead of the crowd. They feed on propaganda, and their judgment is very clouded. To top it off, religious education is not very good, so they expect the pope to be all sorts of things that he is not. He is a religious leader not a miracle worker.
I’m just astonished at what I’ve read. (For various reasons, I wasn’t able to read much news earlier today, nor visit here.) Totally undermines his earlier stance and vindicates the position of the protestors. 
It is a difficult problem made worse by semantics. Barros was quoted in the Chilean press as having said "lies, lies, lies" when asked to respond to the protests to his appointment. Memories change with time, that is an accepted fact, and he could have said that his accuser was mistaken, that it was a long time ago or that he confused him with someone else, but calling the victim a liar was harsh, combative and counter productive. Another prelate in Santiago used equally harsh words to describe the the victims which echoed past words that Papa Francisco used in other occasions said in the same tone. It left the impression with me that this was accepted language and attitude.
I was listening to the am radio today, a Catholic radio station, and they were talking about the abuse. The broadcasters stated that only one witness against Karadima had said that he remembered Barros in the room when the abuse was taking place. The others said that Barros had had to have known of it, because they were very close. I believe that it is possible for people to be close and not know everything about the other. Married couples cheat on one another, and the aggrieved partner goes years without suspecting anything. It is possible for a reasonable person to believe that there isn't enough evidence for Barros to have known, the prosecutors certainly believed that, and the Pope said that he would reconsider the issue if new information came to light. But the broadcasters then cut into a discussion of less people going to church. It is a flawed institution. He should have met with the victims, and we could have gone on, but they refuse to come to terms with the obvious.
The words are nice, and maybe it is a small step in the right direction, but they needed to be met with actions. Those were missing in terms of the sexual abuse issue. He's great with everything else, but he is avoiding the conflicts, the confrontations, and that is not good. I hope that with time he will be able to handle them. For the time being all he can do is to say the words.
Pope Francis speaks his own beliefs. He is also capable of being convinced otherwise and saying so.
I forgot to write that the to Barros' credit, he offered his resignation and the Pope did not accept it. I forget if I read it in the press or if I heard it on the radio. It sounded credible.
Well, the NYTimes is blunt: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/opinion/pope-victims-chile.html
it really will be interesting next month, with Pell... wonder what he’ll do then. (Especially given the recent death death of one of the most prominent local survivors)
I suspect, although I haven’t researched, that most commentators except very staunch conservative or Catholic ones are as disappointed as the editorial above.
Yesterday's paper had a good article on the Pope's visit to Chile and Peru which they see not simply as an issue of abuse by the prelate. They also heard a message of environmental protection, political corruption, and femicide. Perhaps the only issue which is common to Catholics around the world is the sexual predation, but the other two issues are prominent in Latin America. http://www.latercera.com/noticia/cinco-claves-la-compleja-gira-del-papa-sudamerica/
Pope Offers Partial Apology To Clergy Sex Abuse Victims After Demand For ‘Proof’
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pope-francis-apology-sex-abuse_us_5a65fe55e4b0e5630071c663
(Good morning) I'm so disappointed with that apology. Totally misses the point, just restates the same stance with prettier words. And what makes it worse, he says Barros offered to resign twice but he wouldn't let him.
Edited to add: Really? As if changing 'proof' to 'evidence' suddenly changes things after all this time when he's still not believing the survivors, given this:
“Here I have to apologize because the word ‘proof’ hurt them. It hurt a lot of abused people,” he said. “I know how much they suffer. And to hear that the pope told them to their face that they need to bring a letter with proof? It’s a slap in the face.”
OK, he should have spoken to the victims. Let it be. They are not ready for it.
Copihue, what you're not seeing is how this sets the tone for how the matter is handled in other countries, for example here where Cardinal Pell has the Pope's support yet is involved in extended criminal proceedings that are likely to go nowhere while survivors suicide, or die of age-related illnesses, and Pell himself is still paid by the Church and might eventually die (like Lionel Murphy or Christopher Skase - not abuse cases- not truly facing Justice). Other countries have their own examples.
If the Pope isn't really setting the right example here then the Church hierarchy will continue to turn a blind eye everywhere. Allowances will will always be made because 'he's old' or 'he's sick' or'i know him, he's not like that, it was misinterpreted'.
That article makes clear that Trump embodies and exploits the worst characteristics of our society.
mtierney said:
Another take on POTUS.....
https://thejesuitpost.org/2018/01/12-problems-trump-didnt-start/?utm_content=bufferebcad&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
1. White people have always been racists.
2. Trump is not the first racist president.
3. We've always been incarcerating non-whites on a higher basis and for lesser crimes than whites.
4. We've always been ****** to people wanting to enter the country.
5. Women, young girls especially, have always been treated as objects.
6. The media has always been biased, specifically toward anyone who isn't white and male.
7. We've been selling bombs and guns and invading countries so we can use those bombs and guns since forever.
8. Crying "America First!" the slogan of the America First Committee which opposed US involvement in WW2, is the same as any president's call to act in the best interests of all Americans and not just white, christian men.
9. Supporting tyrants has been our foreign policy for decades.
10. No matter what they tell you, being pro-business is actually bad for the average person over the long-term. That's not being snarky, it's actually what it says.
11. White christian males have historically been horrendous people.
12. White male presidents have a history of rape and sexual abuse.
So my take away from this article is that Trump represents and continues all of these fine traditions. In fact he does it gleefully, almost with malice aforethought. He considers himself genetically superior to the rest of us and believes that other people are successful because of their genetics, and therefore only those who are already be successful should be rewarded. He doesn't know what hard work is, or what hard work is worth.
Or, as nohero so rightly puts it: "That article makes clear that Trump embodies and exploits the worst characteristics of our society."
joanne said:
Copihue, what you're not seeing is how this sets the tone for how the matter is handled in other countries, for example here where Cardinal Pell has the Pope's support yet is involved in extended criminal proceedings that are likely to go nowhere while survivors suicide, or die of age-related illnesses, and Pell himself is still paid by the Church and might eventually die (like Lionel Murphy or Christopher Skase - not abuse cases- not truly facing Justice). Other countries have their own examples.
If the Pope isn't really setting the right example here then the Church hierarchy will continue to turn a blind eye everywhere. Allowances will will always be made because 'he's old' or 'he's sick' or'i know him, he's not like that, it was misinterpreted'.
I agree with you that this is a very important issue, but what we say on MOL does not change anything as far as I can tell. A poll was taken before and after the Pope's visit, and unfortunately I don't remember the exact question, but it was related to the sexual abuse. More Chileans are dissatisfied with the Pope's response after his visit than before. Hopefully, they will hear that one.
Besides this reaction of disbelief is not uncommon. I realize that you are in Australia, but today's paper has the following headline:
More than 160 women say Larry Nassar sexually abused them. Here are his accusers in their own words.
The article goes on discussing how the gymnasts made complaints to Police, school administrators and the gymnastics and Olympic organizations that the doctor where they had to report was abusing them, and they were not believed, they were ignored. Guess what? those organizations are still not coming to terms with the abuse of teens and preteens. The parents question themselves how they could not have noticed what was going on. The doctor got 175 years in jail; I think things are changing, but not in those institutions responsible for having placed the girls with the abuser.
Nobody is justifying the abuse. Many people are saying more needs to be done. What else do you want? what do you suggest?
a bit of a reach, perhaps, but Pope Francis points a finger to the birth of Fake News in the Garden of Eden!
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/24/us/politics/pope-francis-fake-news.html?ref=todayspaper
from your link, Lost:
“After reading Pope Francis’ musing on fake news and journalism, I had to ask myself: Doesn’t the Vatican have a rewrite desk where it vets and punches up his copy? At the very least, the pope should have called on St. Francis de Sales, the patron saintof writers and journalists, to intervene on his behalf. Although St. Francis wasn’t exactly a fount of hot copy, as his guide to the devout life proves, he possessed the tenacity of a real news hawk. When the Calvinists he attempted to convert back to Catholicism slammed doors in his face or threw rocks at him, he soldiered on, slipping the doctrinal pamphlets he’d written under their doors.“
To understand and accept, you have to have faith.
As usual, it's more useful to read what the Pope actually said, than to rely just on summarizers (less risk of "fake news" for one thing).
Ends with a little prayer riff on one traditionally attributed to St. Francis
Lord, make us instruments of your peace. Help us to recognize the evil latent in a communication that does not build communion. Help us to remove the venom from our judgements. Help us to speak about others as our brothers and sisters. You are faithful and trustworthy; may our words be seeds of goodness for the world: where there is shouting, let us practise listening; where there is confusion, let us inspire harmony; where there is ambiguity, let us bring clarity; where there is exclusion, let us offer solidarity; where there is sensationalism, let us use sobriety; where there is superficiality, let us raise real questions; where there is prejudice, let us awaken trust; where there is hostility, let us bring respect; where there is falsehood, let us bring truth. Amen.
NYT: Pope Francis, After Criticism, Sends Sex Crimes Investigator to Chile
ROME — When it comes to sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church, supporters of Pope Francis are hoping that if indeed he was blind, now he sees. Francis on Tuesday dispatched the Vatican’s leading sex crimes investigator to Chile, days after the pope’s vigorous, repeated and potentially disastrous defense of Bishop Juan Barros Madrid, who is accused of protecting the country’s most notorious pedophile priest.
“As a result of some information received recently regarding the case,” the Vatican said in a statement on Tuesday, the church will send to Chile the Maltese Archbishop Charles Scicluna, who has been called the Vatican’s Eliot Ness in fighting clerical sex abuse. There, the statement continued, he will “hear those who have expressed the desire to provide elements in their possession.” By elements in their possession, the Vatican apparently means the testimony and painful stories of victims that the pope had previously dismissed as slanderous accusations.
The pope’s belief of a powerful bishop over victims outraged advocates for the survivors of sexual abuse both outside and inside the church. The outcry over the pope’s blind spot to clerical sexual abuse, and his tin ear to the anguish of its victims, threatened to indelibly stain the pontificate of a usually politically astute pope. The pope’s supporters on Tuesday quickly embraced the decision as an important course correction. “It is a positive development in so far that it makes clear that the Holy See is interested to learn from and hear the testimonies of witnesses,” said the Rev. Hans Zollner, who served as a member of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors. It was clear Francis had “listened to the questions that some journalists have put to him,” Father Zollner added. “He has learned from the reactions.”
But victims in Chile said that while the news was welcome, they hoped it was not a public relations gambit. “Nobody has said anything to us,” said Juan Carlos Cruz, a Chilean who says he was sexually abused by the Rev. Fernando Karadima. He has said that Bishop Barros witnessed the abuse and did nothing about it. He said that he would be willing to testify, as victims have been doing to church law tribunals since 2005, and added, “We are encouraged.” Francis’ trip to Chile in mid-January was overshadowed by his brusque remarks to a Chilean reporter that the claims against Bishop Barros amounted to “slander.” The pope said he would weigh in on the matter if there were “proof” against the bishop.
Cardinal Sean O’Malley, the archbishop of Boston and the leader of the pope’s commission on the protection of minors, called the pope’s remarks “a source of great pain for survivors” that relegated them “to discredited exile.” In a clumsy attempt at damage control, the pope made a contradictory statement on the flight back to Rome. He apologized for demanding proof from alleged victims, saying that the word was insensitive, but then reiterated that there was no “evidence” against the bishop, who he again said was the victim of slander.
Some victims of Father Karadima, a powerful priest convicted by the Vatican in 2011 for sexually abusing minors, have accused Bishop Barros of standing by as the priest kissed and abused them in the El Bosque Catholic parish. On the plane, Francis said he had twice refused to accept the resignation of Bishop Barros, and in January 2015 he moved the bishop from leading Chile’s military ordinariate to the diocese of Osorno. The installation fractured the faithful and clergy of the city, with many opposing a bishop they considered complicit in sexual abuse. The pope’s response mystified observers and vexed his supporters. Possible explanations tumbled out. Was he getting bad advice from his cardinal advisers? Was he protecting a friend? Was he a member of a Vatican factionthat believes in “zero tolerance” or one that considers the abuse issue finished business? Was the pope, someone who faced accusations of supporting a violent regime as a cardinal in Argentina, loath to give into public pressure?
Tuesday’s statement suggested that public pressure had forced the pope to act and that far from infallible, Francis had perhaps spoken in Chile without knowing what he was talking about.
By contrast, Bishop Scicluna has in the last decade emerged as the Vatican prelate who most gets it when it comes to the issue of sexual abuse.
Bishop Scicluna, who declined to comment for this article, acted as a prosecutor during his time at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Pope Benedict XVI. He took on the powerful Rev. Marcial Maciel Degollado of Mexico, the founder of the influential Legionaries of Christ, who was considered untouchable because of his close ties to and protection under Pope John Paul II.
For years, Vatican prelates dismissed the accusations of Father Degollado’s victims as slander, but Bishop Scicluna listened to them and, after John Paul’s death, convinced the Vatican that Father Degollado had abused seminarians in his own order.
Benedict sentenced Father Degollado to a life of penance and prayer in 2006. Father Degollado died in 2008, and was later shown to have been a serial molester who fathered children by two women.
Archbishop Scicluna subsequently explained that Benedict, previously John Paul’s chief doctrinal watchdog, had undergone a conversion on the issue as he sat at his desk reading horrific dossier after horrific dossier.
Advocates for Francis hope that Archbishop Scicluna will now figure in opening up the eyes of another pontiff.
“It is good that he has now looked anew and taken this step,” Marie Collins, an abuse survivor who last year resigned in frustration from the pope’s Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, wrote on Twitter.
Despite Francis’ promises to rid the church of abuse, many Vatican watchers consider him far less effective than Benedict, who removed many priests. Francis has mostly disappointed those who hoped he would bring accountability to the church hierarchy.
Last year, he instead recalled a Vatican diplomat accused of possession of child pornography back to Rome, despite efforts by the American authorities to strip the priest of his immunity. Last month, the terms of the members of the Vatican commission on abuse expired. The pope has called the delay in restarting the commission “normal.”
Father Zollner, himself a member of that commission, said he had witnessed meetings between Francis and victims. In Chile, he said, the pope, like any leader, found himself in an “ethical dilemma” in which he wanted to believe victims but needed to be sure that their allegations were true.
And given the intense attention on the issue now, he said, Archbishop Scicluna’s mission to get to the bottom of it will be especially challenging.
“He needs to get as much evidence as possible now,” he said. “One way or the other.”
I have no doubt that Pope Francis’ decision to send an investigator to Chile is a sincere response on his part. He would never condone a coverup.
Ironically, in many local US jurisdictions the wedding would not be recognized as legal. The Pope needs to be officially registered in those places before being allowed to perform weddings.