I firmly resolve, with the help of God’s grace, to remain committed to the pursuit of justice in the Church, no matter how often it is thwarted by human beings, and to obey God rather than men when the latter seek to violate conscience or to protect the guilty at the expense of the innocent.
The pattern continues. Such a sad state of affairs. No paperwork despite court requirements. Fear of reprisal. No defrocking. All I can say is I hope sunshine is the best medicine and somehow this madness will end.
I want to be clear that this is a question and not a defense: clearly, there are serious questions that must be answered about what information was received by whom when and how it was acted on, and clearly at the very least Zanchetta should have been removed from his Vatican post earlier. The question, however, is: if I recall correctly, the Pillar has reported in the past that the Vatican often delays or suspends canonical trials when there is a criminal trial ongoing on the same case, so as not to seem to influence or anticipate or override secular justice. Am I remembering this correctly, and if so is this perhaps what is going on here? If so, hopefully the canonical process can now resume and quickly be brought to a close.
But why would the Vatican refuse to respond to the subpoena?, Instead of responding “we don’t have any additional evidence since we wait on the civil trial to conclude before conducting our own trial.” It seems clear they did do some investigating and gathered some evidence. Not conducting a trial is not what I find disturbing here but the Vatican’s blantant interference with a civil investigation. Something that is not supposed to happen anymore still taking place at the highest level of the Church’s hierarchy.
They may in fact be waiting for Zanchetta to exhaust all of his appeals before acting (is this his last appeal or is there more to go?) That is about the only reasonable defense I think they would have at this point. No action was taken against Cardinal Pell even though he was in prison, and Pope Francis let the process play out. Now who knows what would have happened if he had lost his appeal; thankfully we didn't have to find out with Cardinal Pell, but we may be finding out with Zanchetta in the near future.
But again why is the Vatican not cooperating with the civil investigation? That is the standard and best practice.
Also, why has Zanchetta been permitted to have public roles?. If your average priest was under investigation for such serious crimes in the U.S. he would be on leave and not be permitted to minister as a priest until the civil and ecclesial investigation exonerated him. Yet, those further up in the hierarchy get special treatment.
"Despite his criminal conviction, now upheld, Zanchetta remains a bishop and has faced no known disciplinary measures from Church authorities, raising criticism from local Catholics and drawing international attention because of Pope Francis’ personal involvement in the case. In addition to particular abuses, the bishop serially pressured seminarians to engage in sexual conduct, displayed pornographic selfies and other images on his phone, and pushed seminarians for massages and other contact while supplying them with alcohol, according to testimony at trial."
Lucky he isn't an advocate of the Traditional Latin Mass or else he would be in big trouble.
I am reminded of a saying from a seminary rector “when did he stop praying the Breviary?” Initially in reference to priests abandoning the priesthood, but I think it might be relevant in these sorts of cases.
It's probably true, but can be one of the many false flags we use. I have experience with this exact phrase, by a priest who also asked me month after month to report back to him on who I found attractive and then coached me on how to lie to the vocations director about it. And then in confession when you are told to go back to your territorial parish. There are all kinds of tricks to keep people from speaking out, while the very next person in line for confession thinks the priest is disciplined and holy. A much better approach is to understand that all of us are a mess, and that we are on a journey toward holiness together. It's a lifelong process of becoming all God made us for, not a state of being.
People come to me with stories all the time. Through word of mouth because I’ve been open, and most people don’t feel like there is a Catholic they can trust. I want to be abundantly sure I offer genuine praise for all of the good going on around here. BUT there is such an immense collective effort by the priests to uphold a facade of discipline and perfection that isn’t truth. That’s why I tell people holiness is not a state, it’s a process of becoming all God made you for. Our priests are on that journey too.
I would say that he does not need to care as he is totally bombproof. Both as regards doctrine and any disciplinary matters. My touchstone example was The Times of London headline on Good Friday 2018: "Pope Francis 'abolishes Hell'". If he survives that sort of outrage, he can survive anything.
It was bizarre going to Mass after that headline and....er....nothing had apparently changed. It was as if all out nuclear war had happened and everyday life went on as normal.
As for his Sept 2024 declarations that all religions are paths to God or gifts from God. Well, he seemed to have survived those unscathed. Nothing to see, move along now.
No, the Pope is not totally bombproof. Like all of us, he faces God's judgment and whether or not he believes hell exists with many people in it, a number of canonized saints have seen inside it and stated what they saw. Hell is forever, which is why we should pray each day for the people who are going to die today who are not yet in a state of grace.
It is a bit bizarre, but actually, nothing had changed.
Headlines claiming the Pope changed doctrine doesn't change doctrine. The Pope claiming in an airplane interview that he changed doctrine doesn't do it either. The nuclear war is limited to those who falsely claim doctrinal changes, and those who believe them.
Even with the Pope in the Middle Ages who taught heresy from the pulpit and doubled down on it when questioned, there was an uproar, and nobody tried to depose him.
I suspect that most people who recognize that Pope Francis regularly says things that are at least offensive to pious ears, have either already figured out that he's not a doctrinal powerhouse and started ignoring him, or have already left the Church. A lot of Catholics weren't reading the headlines in the first place.
I spoke to one of our most faithful parishioners (in the parish since 1959) about the Times headline. She said "Oh, yes, I saw that" as if it was another bit of Royal Family gossip. So maybe the Papal chaos has less impact than I might fear.
An awful lot of what gets talked about from the Pope basically is Royal Family gossip. Where's he going, what's he wearing, who's in favor and who's out...
With respect, because the report is mostly very well done, please check your source again on having him listed as a Domus resident. And issue a charitable correction if necessary. And thank you for reporting on this issue!
Eddie, I might call this a foul, vile and baseless insinuation. But there was that photo of Pope Francis with Monsignor Ricca (who am I to judge) which reminded me of the old classic " I only have eyes for you"...
Say what you like about Pope Francis, he is tireless in working for the rehabilitation of sinners and the unemployed. First Monsignor Ricca, the dodgy diplomat in Montevideo. Who am I to judge? Now we have Prof. Javier Belda Iniesta, holder of all those dodgy degrees and booted out of Murcia University. But fear not, endless work as a Vatican lawyer and investigator lies ahead.
Is there a permanent vigil of protest about these cases (Rupnik, etc, etc) somewhere? There really should be and I would go out of my way to put in some time there.
This kind of frociaggine doesn’t seem to bother Francis enough.
I firmly resolve, with the help of God’s grace, to remain committed to the pursuit of justice in the Church, no matter how often it is thwarted by human beings, and to obey God rather than men when the latter seek to violate conscience or to protect the guilty at the expense of the innocent.
Amen. Thank you!
The pattern continues. Such a sad state of affairs. No paperwork despite court requirements. Fear of reprisal. No defrocking. All I can say is I hope sunshine is the best medicine and somehow this madness will end.
I want to be clear that this is a question and not a defense: clearly, there are serious questions that must be answered about what information was received by whom when and how it was acted on, and clearly at the very least Zanchetta should have been removed from his Vatican post earlier. The question, however, is: if I recall correctly, the Pillar has reported in the past that the Vatican often delays or suspends canonical trials when there is a criminal trial ongoing on the same case, so as not to seem to influence or anticipate or override secular justice. Am I remembering this correctly, and if so is this perhaps what is going on here? If so, hopefully the canonical process can now resume and quickly be brought to a close.
But why would the Vatican refuse to respond to the subpoena?, Instead of responding “we don’t have any additional evidence since we wait on the civil trial to conclude before conducting our own trial.” It seems clear they did do some investigating and gathered some evidence. Not conducting a trial is not what I find disturbing here but the Vatican’s blantant interference with a civil investigation. Something that is not supposed to happen anymore still taking place at the highest level of the Church’s hierarchy.
The Holy See is above every law, in any country or judicial
system. This is the belief of those who run the institution.
Justice does not matter.
They may in fact be waiting for Zanchetta to exhaust all of his appeals before acting (is this his last appeal or is there more to go?) That is about the only reasonable defense I think they would have at this point. No action was taken against Cardinal Pell even though he was in prison, and Pope Francis let the process play out. Now who knows what would have happened if he had lost his appeal; thankfully we didn't have to find out with Cardinal Pell, but we may be finding out with Zanchetta in the near future.
But again why is the Vatican not cooperating with the civil investigation? That is the standard and best practice.
Also, why has Zanchetta been permitted to have public roles?. If your average priest was under investigation for such serious crimes in the U.S. he would be on leave and not be permitted to minister as a priest until the civil and ecclesial investigation exonerated him. Yet, those further up in the hierarchy get special treatment.
"Despite his criminal conviction, now upheld, Zanchetta remains a bishop and has faced no known disciplinary measures from Church authorities, raising criticism from local Catholics and drawing international attention because of Pope Francis’ personal involvement in the case. In addition to particular abuses, the bishop serially pressured seminarians to engage in sexual conduct, displayed pornographic selfies and other images on his phone, and pushed seminarians for massages and other contact while supplying them with alcohol, according to testimony at trial."
Lucky he isn't an advocate of the Traditional Latin Mass or else he would be in big trouble.
Or taking a hard line stance on illegal immigration…
Another 'Friend of Francis'.
I am reminded of a saying from a seminary rector “when did he stop praying the Breviary?” Initially in reference to priests abandoning the priesthood, but I think it might be relevant in these sorts of cases.
It's probably true, but can be one of the many false flags we use. I have experience with this exact phrase, by a priest who also asked me month after month to report back to him on who I found attractive and then coached me on how to lie to the vocations director about it. And then in confession when you are told to go back to your territorial parish. There are all kinds of tricks to keep people from speaking out, while the very next person in line for confession thinks the priest is disciplined and holy. A much better approach is to understand that all of us are a mess, and that we are on a journey toward holiness together. It's a lifelong process of becoming all God made us for, not a state of being.
That priest you mentioned sounds suspect....
People come to me with stories all the time. Through word of mouth because I’ve been open, and most people don’t feel like there is a Catholic they can trust. I want to be abundantly sure I offer genuine praise for all of the good going on around here. BUT there is such an immense collective effort by the priests to uphold a facade of discipline and perfection that isn’t truth. That’s why I tell people holiness is not a state, it’s a process of becoming all God made you for. Our priests are on that journey too.
Crotch grabbing, neck kisses, coerced massages and nude selfies- harmless horse play from one bro to another.
A desire for liturgical and architectural coherence in alignment with Sacrosanctum Concilium- radical disobedience.
Great.
Nothing bothers Francis, as Vicar of Christ he is not only above the law, he is the law.
My only question is does this not bother him because he doesn't know what a scandal he is causing, or does he just not care?
I would say that he does not need to care as he is totally bombproof. Both as regards doctrine and any disciplinary matters. My touchstone example was The Times of London headline on Good Friday 2018: "Pope Francis 'abolishes Hell'". If he survives that sort of outrage, he can survive anything.
It was bizarre going to Mass after that headline and....er....nothing had apparently changed. It was as if all out nuclear war had happened and everyday life went on as normal.
As for his Sept 2024 declarations that all religions are paths to God or gifts from God. Well, he seemed to have survived those unscathed. Nothing to see, move along now.
No, the Pope is not totally bombproof. Like all of us, he faces God's judgment and whether or not he believes hell exists with many people in it, a number of canonized saints have seen inside it and stated what they saw. Hell is forever, which is why we should pray each day for the people who are going to die today who are not yet in a state of grace.
It is a bit bizarre, but actually, nothing had changed.
Headlines claiming the Pope changed doctrine doesn't change doctrine. The Pope claiming in an airplane interview that he changed doctrine doesn't do it either. The nuclear war is limited to those who falsely claim doctrinal changes, and those who believe them.
Even with the Pope in the Middle Ages who taught heresy from the pulpit and doubled down on it when questioned, there was an uproar, and nobody tried to depose him.
I suspect that most people who recognize that Pope Francis regularly says things that are at least offensive to pious ears, have either already figured out that he's not a doctrinal powerhouse and started ignoring him, or have already left the Church. A lot of Catholics weren't reading the headlines in the first place.
I spoke to one of our most faithful parishioners (in the parish since 1959) about the Times headline. She said "Oh, yes, I saw that" as if it was another bit of Royal Family gossip. So maybe the Papal chaos has less impact than I might fear.
An awful lot of what gets talked about from the Pope basically is Royal Family gossip. Where's he going, what's he wearing, who's in favor and who's out...
With respect, because the report is mostly very well done, please check your source again on having him listed as a Domus resident. And issue a charitable correction if necessary. And thank you for reporting on this issue!
Yes, re-upping. I believe the information in the article is incorrect on this one point.
They look so tenderly at each other.
Eddie, I might call this a foul, vile and baseless insinuation. But there was that photo of Pope Francis with Monsignor Ricca (who am I to judge) which reminded me of the old classic " I only have eyes for you"...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/10191600/Popes-eyes-and-ears-in-Vatican-bank-had-string-of-homosexual-affairs.html
Say what you like about Pope Francis, he is tireless in working for the rehabilitation of sinners and the unemployed. First Monsignor Ricca, the dodgy diplomat in Montevideo. Who am I to judge? Now we have Prof. Javier Belda Iniesta, holder of all those dodgy degrees and booted out of Murcia University. But fear not, endless work as a Vatican lawyer and investigator lies ahead.
This is another reason I am a paid subscriber . The Pillar continues to report on these issues when elsewhere it is crickets .
Is there a permanent vigil of protest about these cases (Rupnik, etc, etc) somewhere? There really should be and I would go out of my way to put in some time there.