From an article by Alvise Armellini in Reuters:

https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/papal-enemy-archbishop-vigano-found-guilty-of-schism-and-excommunicated

Excerpts:

“Italian Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, a fierce ultra-conservative critic of Pope Francis, has been found guilty of schism and excommunicated, the Vatican's doctrinal office said on Friday.

“Vigano, the papal envoy in Washington from 2011-2016, went into hiding in 2018 after alleging that the pope knew for years about sexual misconduct by U.S. Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and did nothing about it.

“He had said the pope should resign and subsequently branded him a ‘false prophet’ and a ‘servant of Satan’.

“The Vatican rejected Vigano's accusations of a cover-up of sexual misconduct and last month summoned him to answer charges of schism and denying the pope's legitimacy.

“In a statement on Friday, the doctrinal office said his public comments made it clear that he refused "to recognize and submit" to Pope Francis.

“…he [has] been excommunicated, or banished, from the Church.”


The Pope doesn’t sound all that bad with some of his reforms (or at least, entry into the 21st century):

From the article:

“In a lengthy text, Vigano referred to the pope only by his surname, "Bergoglio", and accused him of representing an "inclusive, immigrationist, eco-sustainable, and gay-friendly" Church that had strayed from its true message.

“Francis has angered many conservatives by making overtures towards divorcees and the LGBT community, and by saying that mercy and forgiveness should come before the strict enforcement of Catholic doctrine.

“The pope has also put himself at odds with conservatives and traditionalists by championing migrant rights and the fight against climate change, and condemning the excesses of capitalism.”



It seems laughable at this point in human history to be against migrant rights and divorce (still?!!) as well as dismissing other concerns such as climate change and LGBTQ+ issues.

I realize that after many years of existence it’s challenging for some institutions to adapt to change but isn’t all of human history composed of everlasting change? Best to get used to it.

This is not to say that the widespread sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church isn't appalling and that this Pope and others have ever addressed it satisfactorily.

It seems strange to me that this very conservative-sounding Vigano guy would criticize the Pope for alleged sexual abuse by one specified priest but would stick to his other anti-a-lot stance on other crucial issues where he's on the very conservative side (which includes reportedly wanting to withhold fairness and equity from certain groups of people).

Why aren't people more consistent? Even if consistently wrong. :P

I find myself being too consistent most of the time lately. Some would call it a rut though I swear it is a groove. I was much better as schisming in my earlier years.

Yes. Odd word. Seems like a good question for a Bishop's interview.

"Young Brother Jones. Have schismed lately?"

"No Bishop. I tie one hand to the bedpost and hold a BoM in the other."

I like saying the word schism - it sounds so interesting, musical even. To be more precise about the specific charge that got the Archbishop defrocked, here are the excerpts concerning that:

"The Vatican rejected Vigano's accusations of a cover-up of sexual misconduct and last month summoned him to answer charges of schism and denying the pope's legitimacy.

"In a statement on Friday, the doctrinal office said his public comments made it clear that he refused "to recognize and submit" to Pope Francis. He had also rejected the legitimacy of liberal reforms made by the Roman Catholic Church in the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, it said.

"At the conclusion of the penal process, the Most Reverend Carlo Maria Vigano was found guilty of the reserved delict (violation of the law) of schism," the statement said, adding that he had been excommunicated, or banished, from the Church."

-----

Violating the law of schism. Oooohhh.Obviously a seriously big deal.

He was apparently not staying in line as far back as the '60s but he's lasted so many decades since his first demonstrations of failure to submit that it's kind of amazing. I wonder what tipped him over the edge to the point of finally being too schism-y for them.

I used to often hear about the value of unquestioning submission during my JW interlude.

I'm not a fan.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/2024 03:55PM by Nightingale.

> I wonder what tipped him
> over the edge to the point of finally being too
> schism-y for them.

Probably accusing the pope of complicity, or more, in the coverup of sexual abuse of children, which may well have struck too close to home.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Probably accusing the pope of complicity, or more,
> in the coverup of sexual abuse of children, which
> may well have struck too close to home.

Yes, good point. Likely a bridge too far.

But this guy has been out of step since the '60s it sounds like. Eons ago. How did he last this long I wonder.

A strict or strict-ish religious group doesn't favour individualism, as we know.

Not that I'm a fan of this guy's obvious fundamentalism. Never mind the '60s. It sounds like he's from the Middle Ages.

It's a cool word alright

Exed for being too Catholic.

    "Schism is to Catholocism as jizz'em is to mormonism, or my name isn't Hank!"

    --Judic West, lying, sort of...

It sounds like Judic is following in the footsteps of Uncle Jesus with his dubious self-care methods.

"Doobieism is to self-care as mormonism is to welfare!"

    --Judicious Western, Folklorist in full bloom

Just keep the rotary phone away from him.

They better wash that hankie between temple dedications.

First, schism was first used when the eastern Orthodox Church broke away from the Roman Catholic Church around 1000 A.D. The eastern Orthodox patriarch wouldn't recognize the Pope of Rome as the head of the Catholic church. This was a good four centuries or so before Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation. Probably a similar departure (though the word 'schism' wasn't used) occurred among the Mormons when the fundamentalist Mormons broke away from the mainline Salt Lake City operation after the latter renounced (at least publicly) the practice of polygamy.

I would also point out (and I'm doing this from memory) that the current Roman pope wasn't pope in 2006 when the Italian cardinal said he knew about the Massachusetts' cardinal hiding of sexual affairs. That would have been his immediate predecessor's problem, and that predecessor was almost as conservative as the defrocked Italian cardinal.

I think the whole truth here is that there is a developing schism between conservative and liberal Catholics, and that may be one reason why the current pontiff has decided not to retire--he's afraid that a conservative, like this cardinal, will be named in his place.

Finally, in the U.S., there are a lot of religious conservatives who refuse to accept homosexual rights, climate change, and the like. I think that these conservatives and the money that some of them have at their command help to explain the highly partisan nature of debate and inaction in the U.S. on these subjects.

A couple of points.


> First, schism . . . occurred among the Mormons when the fundamentalist
> Mormons broke away from the mainline Salt Lake
> City operation after the latter renounced (at
> least publicly) the practice of polygamy.

One could argue that it went the other way: that the SLC church broke away from the fundamentalist church.


--------------

Secondly,

> . . . in the U.S., there are a lot of religious
> conservatives who refuse to accept homosexual
> rights, climate change, and the like. I think that
> these conservatives and the money that some of
> them have at their command help to explain the
> highly partisan nature of debate and inaction in
> the U.S. on these subjects.

It's important to remember, though, that the US bishops formulated a reform program to deal with child molestation and its concealment, and their effort was blocked by Frank's Vatican. In some areas, therefore, the papacy itself is the primary obstacle to modernization.

Lot's wife wrote in part:

"One could argue that it went the other way: that the SLC church broke away from the fundamentalist church."

Your argument rests on the assumption that the Mormon fundamentalists were following original Mormon doctrine, which they were. I would argue, however, that schism has less to do with following traditional practices and beliefs (both the eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches had similar practices and held similar views in many areas after the split) and more to do with who you recognize as your church leader. Since the fundamentalist Mormons decided to continue practicing polygamy after the Mormon prophet said publicly to give it up, the FLDS sect would arguably be the breakaway one.

Yes, it goes both ways. My point was simply that the polygamists are much closer to the original church.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, it goes both ways. My point was simply that
> the polygamists are much closer to the original
> church.

That is a good point.

When people think of Bountiful up here in Canada or Short Creek etc down in the US I think many assume that it's the fundamentalists who have warped the mainstream LDS Church but in reality it's the other way 'round.

I think it makes a difference in perception. Not that it matters I guess. Many people likely assume it's the plygs who are the offshoots. I wonder how they'd view the modern Mormon church if they became more familiar with even a small bit of mo history. Too bad Donny and Marie had such a big influence in making it seem so super nice and friendly and happy and bouncy. Also, the genial Jeopardy host Ken J. Maybe the world's most famous Mormons, at least in North America. Perhaps. If that's the only exposure some people have to moism they'd likely think it ain't all bad.

Most people have absolutely no knowledge of Moism atall, and if they ever think of it, it is in terms of Donny and Marie Osmond (from my generation) or from the current host of "Jeopardy" from later generations. That lack of knowledge is true even among parts of the so-called Mormon corridor.

A few years back, I sat in on a trivial pursuits game among atheists here in Phoenix, Arizona. All of the questions were about different religions, particularly Christian religions, and the person answering had to choose from either a True/False answer or a series of multiple choices. For Mormonism, the question that was asked was who came up with the Adam-is-God doctrine. None of the players knew (though I did) that the correct answer was Brigham Young.

The whole truth here is that unless it has some personal relevance to you and your situation, you're not going to be looking at Mormonism or the doctrines of any religion but the one you were raised on (and sometimes, believers don't even do that). In my case, at the time I was considering the religion, I was considering dating a Mormon girl who worked with the blind (she was a braille transcriber/proofreader). My research about her religion ultimately lead me to this Board (I guess it proves me a religious skeptic), and here is where I've stayed for almost 20 years now.

Oh, and as to that girl, we never did date. By the time she showed some interest in me, I was already reading this forum and knew enough to know that I should stay away from her. She is no longer doing braille proofreading sessions with me for the state, and I've been told by someone who used to work with her on a daily basis that she is no longer in the blindness field. It seems that she wouldn't let her bosses see her work and she didn't take criticism well. As far as I know (I haven't kept in touch), she's never married and is now a part-time oboeist with a local area orchestra. I know she traveled a lot with the group (including outside of the U.S.A.), and that she has seen things that many of her LDS (and non-LDS) contemporaries have never seen.

That's quite a story.

Going abroad can change a person fundamentally--or not. Perhaps if she'd been amenable to the former sort of experience something might have been possible. . .

"here is where I've stayed for almost 20 years now"

and I'm very glad you have. You bring a lot to the Board.

+1

blindguy: Lot's Wife's response has no words, only a plus one in agreement with Tom.

That's quite unusual for her so I noticed it especially. :)

That's a joke because I, for one, cannot in all seriousness criticize a fellow poster for length when I tend to go long myself on occasion. (Well, OK, on many occasions).

But anyway, I agree with Soft Machine (Tom as was and how I always automatically translate Soft Machine in my head). I read all your posts and enjoy the information you provide, blindguy.

But wow. 20 years. Tempus fugit. Definitely.

That's interesting, blindguy, that the concept of blind obedience in a church goes back to 1000 A.D. Likely further back even. Maybe to the Garden of Eden (smiley face included here).

To be clear, I've heard of schism before, of course. But being "guilty of schism" - that's a new one on me.

It doesn't sound quite correct grammatically. Like it should be 'schisming', a verb, rather than the noun 'schism'.

So I had to look it up to see if 'schisming' is actually a legitimate word (although I'd use it anyway) and yes, it is. The definitions include 'division', 'separation', 'disharmony'. Another discussion on meaning refers to 'inducing schisming' which sounds like an even more severe transgression than mere schisming but actually relates to "the transformation from a single conversation to multiple conversations".

Then the definition starts on about "constituting a particular sequential phenomenon" which loses me right there on this hot July afternoon. Obviously too complex, haha.

>> To be clear, I've heard of schism before, of course. But being "guilty of schism" - that's a new one on me.

That's a new term for me as well, Nightingale. But apparently, apostasy, heresy, and schism are the "big three." According to the linked website, "An automatic excommunication is attached to what the Church considers very serious ecclesiastical crimes: apostasy, heresy, and schism; throwing away the Sacred Body or Precious Blood of Christ or retaining either for a sacrilegious purpose; the use of physical force against the pope; a priest's absolution of someone who is the priest's accomplice in a sin against the sixth commandment (the absolution itself is invalid); a bishop's consecration of another bishop without a pontifical mandate; a confessor's direct violation of the seal of confession; the procuring of a completed abortion; and the recording and/or the subsequent divulging of the recording of a sacramental confession."

https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/catholic-faith/excommunication-what-is-it-and-does-the-church-still-do-it.html

...Catholics fight like hell to keep what is said in the confessional private, including from the police. The problem is, of course, that some of those "sins", such as child sexual abuse, cannot be cured by anything the Roman Catholic or any other religious institution can do.

What will happen if / when Rusty hears about this?

My Bad

So much shorter than “insubordination”.

It may sometimes be difficult to remember that Francis represents the liberal wing of the church. I remember being surprised when he was elected. He has moved the church, to some degree, to a more liberal, tolerant point of view. With that, he still never fully understood the gravity of the child sex abuse scandals. He thought that all could be solved in the confessional, not a jail cell.

Any religious (priest, nun, brother) in the year 2024 who is not on board with the 1960s reforms of Vatican II will indeed be seen as a fringe member at best. Vigano will find a home with a breakaway church.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/2024 07:19PM by summer.

Does he? When Francis isn't busy endorsing the latest "global faith leader goals" (much the same as Nelson does), he is quite homophobic. You're probably not aware of it but he has used gay slurs in at least two private meetings now. The Italian equivalent of what rhymes with the word "maggotry". Not exactly liberal.

He criticized the Pope's boss, and I don't mean God the Father, Jesus Christ or the BVM. When times of trouble come a-rollin' in, we need dissidents. He told a few home truths and was punished for it.

If he said that the Catholic church is being influenced by external forces with their own questionable agendas then that would be true. It would also be true of the LDS and not in a way that would be helpful to exmos.

Mel Gibson’s Letter to Archbishop Viganò

https://www.complicitclergy.com/2024/07/08/mel-gibsons-letter-to-archbishop-vigano/

Wow. Interesting.

The true church vs the false church seems to be the theme throughout the ages.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2024 05:47PM by Nightingale.

Two peas out of the same pod. I regard Gibson as a complete nutter.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Two peas out of the same pod. I regard Gibson as a
> complete nutter.

He seems to be, summer. I don't follow his antics closely at all though.

Interesting how he considers one iteration of the Catholic Church false and another the true one.

Of course, he's not alone as we know, with various other churches also claiming to be keepers of the true faith.

It's enough to confuse the masses. And it does.

The mainstream media doesn't help. Then again, it is difficult to fit the word "sedevacantist" into a headline.

Mel Gibson's brain is a registered Lethal Weapon.

Even some mainstream Roman Catholics are forced to admit Francis' papacy has at least one major problem: he took the job while the previous pope was still alive. This isn't standard practice and you have to go far back into history to find another example of it. Either way, it puts Francis' claim into uncertain territory.

Amman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even some mainstream Roman Catholics are forced to
> admit Francis' papacy has at least one major
> problem: he took the job while the previous pope
> was still alive. This isn't standard practice and
> you have to go far back into history to find
> another example of it. Either way, it puts
> Francis' claim into uncertain territory.

His predecessor stepped down voluntarily. So the issue you bring up would be pertinent regardless of who replaced the previous pope. In truth, I think the Roman church (as well as the LDS church) would be assisted immensely if the terms of its head were a defined 20 years, say, instead of for life.

Your average Catholic is not questioning Francis's claim. What happened was highly unusual but perfectly acceptable under RC church law.

It's the church for your average Joe.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your average Catholic is not questioning Francis's
> claim. What happened was highly unusual but
> perfectly acceptable under RC church law.

I'm surprised how many do. Never heard this for any previous pope (in my lifetime.)

    One of my proudest achievements as a plucky mormon youth was having a date with a young lady attending St. Mary's of the Wasatch Catholic High School.

    I was a freshman at U of U, and she was a high school senior, but she was older than me, so I let her lead me, guide me, etc.

    Also, I saw a lot of what we called "mangled Christs" in Catholic churches all over central Mexico in the mid-1960s.  Catholicism seems to revel in the pain Jesus went through for them.

The current Pope is a South American and many of them have been influenced by the Liberation Theology heresy which does not sit well with Traditionalist Catholicism of the Gibson school.

    There was a time that I seriously pondered a genuine, semi-righteous schism for mormons:

    "Let us come to a mutually acceptable agreement with ghawd allwhitey that we, his earthbound offspring, accept that we will NOT be worthy of his highest kingdom, but that we will enjoy the 'highs' that many Earthly sins bring in their execution, and that in exchange, we will accept, without complaint or cavil, being eternal smoothies.  I say this in my penis name, amen."


    Was this in the missing 116 pages?  

Schism is supposed to stay INSIDE its little factory!

    "Do you know a good schism attorney?"

Never confess to your bishop without an attorney.

Marram Grass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The current Pope is a South American and many of
> them have been influenced by the Liberation
> Theology heresy which does not sit well with
> Traditionalist Catholicism of the Gibson school.

Feeling mischievous, I just had to post this somewhere. I love the men in suits. Wall Street bankers? Interesting the source is pbs.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GX2TIYGWsAAOFAY?format=jpg

Recently, the United Methodists finally officially fractured/schismed over the issue of gays in the church. The name of many of those congregations leaving is Global United Methodist.

Interesting.

Sad though. Usually churches say they're open to all. In my experience. Or they used to.

Truth in advertising for all too many would be to say come here and we will change you to fit our own ideal because you're not good enough for us the way you are.

Not a great message, imho.