Really makes ya wonder just how corrupt the Vatican has been over the centuries...... Hard to imagine that it's been worse than this, but I'm sure that it has.
I'm having a hard time understanding why it wouldn't be a good and decent thing for the pope to simply clarify whether or not he issued the order to fire Milone. What could possibly be the reason he has refused to clarify this matter?
Not that I had a high opinion of most high ranking Vatican officials to begin with, but this does not inspire much confidence. Seems the corruption is deeper than what we already know.
"I would like to clear my name by presenting the evidence against Vatican officials who conspired against me"
"Not a problem. However, you cannot present evidence of conspiracy against Vatican officials. Good luck! I hope you do not die of cancer along the way."
This is the sort of 1984-esque feigned nobility that even the CCP would be proud of. I think the Vatican court told us what we already know. I really hope to hear Ed go ballistic in the podcast this week on this.
Didn’t that phrase come up in a podcast from a few weeks ago? The Church’s list problem - the Dicastery for Legislative Texts put out a statement that seemed to absolutize the right to a good reputation. I wonder if there’s a link - or maybe the right to a good reputation is just “the line” people, dicasteries, and courts of appeal as thinking about/using.
That was kind of different to my mind. That was saying dioceses couldn’t publish the names of every priest who had been even accused of abuse. In my diocese, all those names are public, including those who were cleared. It does tarnish their reputation, even if it turns out that the accusation was unfounded. A “credible” accusation just means that Fr. So-and-so did work at Parish X during the timeframe mentioned. It doesn’t mean that any investigation has even happened. So that’s why they were saying, don’t just publish these names without the accusations having been proved.
I could kind of understand that if you involve people not previously mentioned during the trial, that could prove difficult to handle, but in that case say so, rather than talking about harming the "good name" of some big wigs in the Vatican.
why are these guys so against having corruption known? everyone knows there is corruption, why not be transparent and get rid of it? my conspiracy mind is starting to think that certain ppl are using the political climate in the Church to distract from their own corruption
Large quantities of corruption implicate a lot of people, either directly by action or participation, or indirectly by knowledge and silence. In a system that runs on patronage like many ecclesiastical systems do, even if you are not personally implicated directly or indirectly, you will almost certainly have ties to someone who is. Whether or not you are met with understanding or suspicion will be dictated by entirely unpredictable factors (like, which of the people you are connected to are, unknown to you, guilty, and which are innocent, and which are found out).
When there are a lot of people doing corrupt things, there will be a lot of evidence of those corrupt things making the rounds, and going across many peoples' desks. Did those people know them for what they were? Were they suspicious, but overwhelmed with things to be suspicious about? Were they incapable of separating them from the problems caused by incompetence? At the very least, due dilligence will result in very uncomfortable interviews of a lot of largely innocent people.
Even if the Vatican cleanup doesn't send people to jail, if a person is in an office with a lot of corrupt people, the cleanup will mean the shutdown of the office and that person may well be out of a job.
Most people prefer the status quo, unless the status quo is bad for them personally. As such, a lot of people will cover up/distract from things that they didn't do, and that aren't even wrong, just to avoid the inquiries. Cleaning is very uncomfortable, and requires the virtues of mortification and courage.
I would hope. But I don't think it's rational to expect solid virtue in that area to be widespread.
Cardinals are made from bishops. Bishops are made from priests. Priests are made from laity. While I don't have much knowledge regarding the practices of the clergy, I think I can say with a fairly high degree of confidence, that most people's mortification is more of an annual tradition than a regular practice. Virtues are habits, which are developed by regular practices, not by strictly annual traditions. While some people are undoubtedly regularly practicing mortification quietly, in spite of there being no requirement to do so, the Friday abstinence crowd are the only advocates for it that I've observed. I don't recall ever being told in religious ed or any of the homilies of my youth that mortification should be practiced regularly. If the laity, by and large, do not have even an introductory level of deliberate and regular mortification, I don't think it's rational to expect those leaders drawn from the laity to have generally developed high levels of it - higher than the typical layperson I might expect, but that bar is rather low. And those leaders typically refrain from teaching it - presumably, it is somewhat easier to teach than to practice.
I look forward to the inevitable day when well-placed people finally feel free to publish exposés revealing what's been going on for the last 12 years.
It seems to me that the type of Curial reform for which the Vatican has previously advocated necessarily entails the naming and correction of those who are taking action contrary to the moral law. If the Vatican court refuses to admit evidence which indicates immoral acts by Vatican officials, then it seems that the Vatican court is tacitly admitting that striving for reform is lip service paid to the masses for the sake of keeping them docile.
It really seems like Roman culture is completely obsessed with someone’s good name. Have they not heard of original sin? Do they not think people’s actions are worth investigating?
This certainly inspires confidence.
Yikes!
Really makes ya wonder just how corrupt the Vatican has been over the centuries...... Hard to imagine that it's been worse than this, but I'm sure that it has.
I believe it has!
Why would anyone donate to Peter's Pence or other Vatican initiatives after this?
They aren't getting a dime from me these days!
Because they need it to run any semblance of a functioning judicial system. Penny pinching in that regard is a recipe for corruption.
Am I reading correctly perhaps the stupidest temporal thing I have ever read?
Certainly cracks the top-3 😅
A strong contender in a competitive bracket
I'm having a hard time understanding why it wouldn't be a good and decent thing for the pope to simply clarify whether or not he issued the order to fire Milone. What could possibly be the reason he has refused to clarify this matter?
Clarity? We wouldn’t want that in the Church. People might find out what is really going on and begin to demand for real reform, not just lip service.
RIGHT ANSWER!!
Milone has in the past indicated he would consider releasing those files to the public if his lawsuit proves unsuccessful.
Not that I had a high opinion of most high ranking Vatican officials to begin with, but this does not inspire much confidence. Seems the corruption is deeper than what we already know.
Auditor should just post it all on the web
With all of the Curial shenanigans, I get the sense that many of the Cardinals don’t believe in Hell.
"I would like to clear my name by presenting the evidence against Vatican officials who conspired against me"
"Not a problem. However, you cannot present evidence of conspiracy against Vatican officials. Good luck! I hope you do not die of cancer along the way."
This is the sort of 1984-esque feigned nobility that even the CCP would be proud of. I think the Vatican court told us what we already know. I really hope to hear Ed go ballistic in the podcast this week on this.
Didn’t that phrase come up in a podcast from a few weeks ago? The Church’s list problem - the Dicastery for Legislative Texts put out a statement that seemed to absolutize the right to a good reputation. I wonder if there’s a link - or maybe the right to a good reputation is just “the line” people, dicasteries, and courts of appeal as thinking about/using.
That was kind of different to my mind. That was saying dioceses couldn’t publish the names of every priest who had been even accused of abuse. In my diocese, all those names are public, including those who were cleared. It does tarnish their reputation, even if it turns out that the accusation was unfounded. A “credible” accusation just means that Fr. So-and-so did work at Parish X during the timeframe mentioned. It doesn’t mean that any investigation has even happened. So that’s why they were saying, don’t just publish these names without the accusations having been proved.
Gosh, is this the Vatican or Communist China?
I could kind of understand that if you involve people not previously mentioned during the trial, that could prove difficult to handle, but in that case say so, rather than talking about harming the "good name" of some big wigs in the Vatican.
Now I cannot even donate to Peter's pence???
why are these guys so against having corruption known? everyone knows there is corruption, why not be transparent and get rid of it? my conspiracy mind is starting to think that certain ppl are using the political climate in the Church to distract from their own corruption
Large quantities of corruption implicate a lot of people, either directly by action or participation, or indirectly by knowledge and silence. In a system that runs on patronage like many ecclesiastical systems do, even if you are not personally implicated directly or indirectly, you will almost certainly have ties to someone who is. Whether or not you are met with understanding or suspicion will be dictated by entirely unpredictable factors (like, which of the people you are connected to are, unknown to you, guilty, and which are innocent, and which are found out).
When there are a lot of people doing corrupt things, there will be a lot of evidence of those corrupt things making the rounds, and going across many peoples' desks. Did those people know them for what they were? Were they suspicious, but overwhelmed with things to be suspicious about? Were they incapable of separating them from the problems caused by incompetence? At the very least, due dilligence will result in very uncomfortable interviews of a lot of largely innocent people.
Even if the Vatican cleanup doesn't send people to jail, if a person is in an office with a lot of corrupt people, the cleanup will mean the shutdown of the office and that person may well be out of a job.
Most people prefer the status quo, unless the status quo is bad for them personally. As such, a lot of people will cover up/distract from things that they didn't do, and that aren't even wrong, just to avoid the inquiries. Cleaning is very uncomfortable, and requires the virtues of mortification and courage.
You would hope that those in leadership positions within the Vatican would have the virtues of mortification and courage.
I would hope. But I don't think it's rational to expect solid virtue in that area to be widespread.
Cardinals are made from bishops. Bishops are made from priests. Priests are made from laity. While I don't have much knowledge regarding the practices of the clergy, I think I can say with a fairly high degree of confidence, that most people's mortification is more of an annual tradition than a regular practice. Virtues are habits, which are developed by regular practices, not by strictly annual traditions. While some people are undoubtedly regularly practicing mortification quietly, in spite of there being no requirement to do so, the Friday abstinence crowd are the only advocates for it that I've observed. I don't recall ever being told in religious ed or any of the homilies of my youth that mortification should be practiced regularly. If the laity, by and large, do not have even an introductory level of deliberate and regular mortification, I don't think it's rational to expect those leaders drawn from the laity to have generally developed high levels of it - higher than the typical layperson I might expect, but that bar is rather low. And those leaders typically refrain from teaching it - presumably, it is somewhat easier to teach than to practice.
I look forward to the inevitable day when well-placed people finally feel free to publish exposés revealing what's been going on for the last 12 years.
It seems to me that the type of Curial reform for which the Vatican has previously advocated necessarily entails the naming and correction of those who are taking action contrary to the moral law. If the Vatican court refuses to admit evidence which indicates immoral acts by Vatican officials, then it seems that the Vatican court is tacitly admitting that striving for reform is lip service paid to the masses for the sake of keeping them docile.
It really seems like Roman culture is completely obsessed with someone’s good name. Have they not heard of original sin? Do they not think people’s actions are worth investigating?