Edit: it's not like there aren't other bishops out there who've put predators in charge of things and even expose children to their influence. It's just that other bishops, like +++Daneels, don't have the requisite political and religious views.
By his own ruling here, the current Pope should suspend himself.
(Vatican Radio) Pope Francis has decided to remove the Bishop of Ciudad del Este, Rogelio Ricardo Livieres Plano.
Below please find a Vatican Radio translation of the official Holy See statement:
After a careful examination of the findings of the Apostolic Visitations made to the Bishop, dioceses and seminaries of Ciudad del Este, by the Congregation for Bishops and the Congregation for the Clergy, the Holy Father has proceeded with the replacement of Bishop Rogelio Ricardo Livieres Plano. He has appointed Ricardo Jorge Valenzuela Ríos, Bishop of Villarrica del Espíritu Santo, as Apostolic Adminostrator of the now vacant diocese.
The grave decision taken by the Holy See, under the weight of serious pastoral concerns, is for the greater good and unity of the Church of Ciudad del Este and episcopal communion in Paraguay.
The Holy Father, in the exercise of his ministry as "the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful" (LG 23) calls for the clergy and the entire people of God of Ciudad del Este to accept the Holy See’s decision with the spirit of obedience, docility and an open heart, guided by faith.
Moreover, he invites the entire Church of Paraguay, led by its pastors, to a serious process of reconciliation and to overcome any factionalism and discord, so that the face of the one Church "purchased with the blood of his own Son" is not wounded and the "flock of Christ" is not deprived of the joy of the Gospel (cf. Acts 20: 28).
(Emer McCarthy)
Pope FrancisBishopsParaguay25/09/2014SHARE:
19 comments:
It wasn't that he was too Catholic. The root of the problem was Fr. Urrutigoity.
see: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/09/ciudad-del-este-opus-dei-bishop.html
One pervert protected is one too many.
I agree with the removal!
You might think differently if your head were on the block.
What's Daneel's excuse, then?
Should the Ordinary of the Diocese of Frejus-Toulon go down because he incardinated a questionable man who was chased from another Diocese by +++Pell?
Daneels is, of course, too powerful to simply depose and there are plenty of rapist-shielding, traditionalist-leaning bishops (Finn) who remain snug in their cathedras.
Ricca is actually guilty of sexually preying on minors who, admittedly, are searching for a meal, but how does that sit with this whole social justice, don't exploit the poor thing the Pope has been pursuing, at least with lip service.
+Finn was actually charged with a crime. I don't think he's smug about anything.
Actually, there was only a police report of one instance of a rent boy that Ricca got caught in an elivator with. I'm sure people in Latin America are really so much more understanding of that non-sense.
The point remains that Fr.U should never have been placed in a position of trust let alone authority. Fr. U is very charismatic and convincing.
Yes, the Pope should act in other cases as well. That does not prevent me from stating that, given the obvious influence of Fr.U, in this case it makes sense.
Fr.U's thoughts on religious life and sexuality are warped. i hope that there was no damage done to the seminarians.
The Pope, like a lot of other political figures who manipulate and use the sexual abuse thing could care less about children.
Daneels is far worse than Urrutigoity. One credible case about 15 years ago versus hundreds of victims, coverups and episcopal corruption by Daneels, to name but one... There's no comparison.
That's the real problem.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/06/thank-you-cardinal-danneels.html?m=1
What kind of idiotic response is that?
If he were really "traditional" he would have followed St. Peter Daman's advice and the Book of Gomorrah.
Or is it all about fancy lace and smells and bells for you?
Eh?
Which is it?
Because as President of a Latin Mass Society as a blogger and as someone who works weekly in the liturgy in both Forms, I detest that this priest (reported by +Fellay I should add, was allowed to minister!
He wouldn't be the first one Urrutigoity has fooled, and if you think that this is anything other than a pretext, you're an idiot.
I referred to an "idiotic response' You have chosen to call me an "idiot".
You're off of the Vox blog roll !!!
I'd have more ease believing that were not the case if you understood the problem and the nature of if/then clauses. Bye.
Benedict gave the Priest an Okay. Father Groeschel greenlighted the Priest So now this Bishop is to blame?
Um, no. This is all about his success as a Bishop while being a traditionalist. He filled the churches and seminaries. The Modernist Bishops didn't like that.
Finn shielded no one, it anything he was an innocent as a young bishop and was set up. Cops in on it too. He is completely innocent of any immorality. He was found guilty of misdemeanor "failure to report child pornography" which was in a preist's drawer. He took the picture to the police HQ when it was first discovered (within the hour) and they told him, forget it, that does not qualify as porn. Then the confusion and blaming began, the principle, certain lefty parishioners, legal run-arounds. As your ignorant post shows, almost no one knows what happened here unless you followed it closely from the beginning. As soon as a conviction is obtained, SNAP steps in and does a smear campaign. Finn is above all that, it's ironic one conviction in the country is at the feet of an innocent priest. But the perverts are crafty enough to avoid anything.
Finn's only crime is teaching the Catholic faith.
Post a Comment