Cardinal DiNardo and USCCB officials to meet with Pope Francis
The director of the Vatican’s press office has confirmed that Pope Francis will meet with the president of the U.S. bishops’ conference Thursday, along with the conference’s vice-president, general secretary, and the president of the pope’s commission on child protection. The meeting is expected to address the clerical sexual abuse crisis that has roiled the Church in the U.S. for several months.
In a short statement released Sept. 11, Greg Burke, director of the Holy See’s press office, said that Francis would meet Sept. 13 with Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, USCCB president, along with Archbishop Jose Gomez, conference vice-president, and Monsignor Brian Bransfield, the general secretary of the conference. Also in attendance will be Cardinal Sean O’Malley, Archbishop of Boston, and the president of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors.
DiNardo first called for a meeting with Francis in mid-August.
In an Aug. 16 statement, DiNardo said he would present to the Holy See a USCCB plan to address the “moral catastrophe” of sexual abuse. That plan calls for a Vatican investigation into “questions surrounding Archbishop McCarrick,” new avenues for reporting misconduct, and new procedures to address complaints against bishops.
More than a week later, on Aug. 27, DiNardo reiterated that he was “eager for a meeting” with Francis.
Full story at Catholic News Agency.
Pope Francis convokes world-wide meeting of bishops on abuse crisis
Pope Francis has called for all the presidents of the Catholic bishops’ conferences of the world to meet at the Vatican in February to discuss the issue of sexual abuse of minors.
A statement from the pope’s cardinal advisory board Sept. 12 said, “The Holy Father Francis, hearing the Council of Cardinals, decided to convene a meeting with the Presidents of the Bishops Conferences of the Catholic Church on the theme of ‘protection of minors.’”
The summit will take place at the Vatican Feb. 21-24, 2019.
In a press briefing Wednesday, Holy See spokesperson Paloma García Ovejero, said the February meeting would be on the “prevention of abuse of minors and vulnerable adults.”
Full story at Catholic News Agency.
No more discussion. Action. You’d think if this were important they wouldn’t wait five months to meet about it and then another year before releasing a document, then another year before implementing changes. The pope is delaying, hoping things will die out by the time they meet.
The pope and his people won’t say anything about it because they don’t know what papers Vigano has on them. They are afraid if they deny something and then Vigano releases the paper proving they lied they will look terrible.
I don’t like the composition of this meeting: Archbishop Gomez doesn’t have a strong will and seems to be under the influence of Cardinal Mahony. Cardinal O’Malley, on the other hand, seems to be a Francis crony to some degree. That leaves Cardinal DiNardo to play offense against a stacked deck.
I can easily see this meeting turning into a strategy session to resist and neutralize any reform.
In my own view, the Pope has decided to “dig in”. This means that he’s prepared to drag the Church through unspeakable and avoidable harm.
His call for a world meeting of conference presidents has the appearance of a comprehensive, grand gesture. But the problem pertains mostly to moral corruption among Francis and his allies in the Americas and in the Vatican.
To get started on the problem, all that he has to do is (1) remove or neutralize his morally corrupt allies; (2) reverse course and start the vetting process for new bishops that was used by Benedict XVI, and (3) hire a trusted intelligence agency to gather information on the lavender mafia at the Vatican for the purposes of removal.
There is a Church law. If it was broken then there are penalties.
You don’t just resign from being Pope because someone smeared you on the Internet.
Even if he did what the Vigano letter says he did, why would he need to resign? People don’t have to resign when they make a mistake. They just have to apologize and do what they can to make amends..
The Church will come up with a just answer to this.
People love to bully on the internet.
Would you tell the Internet the worse thing you ever did and let the Internet sentence you?
You have a thoughtful set of statements that deserve a thoughtful answer. I’m presently experiencing a time crunch, but I’ll reply within 36 hours.
I ordinarily would agree with you, but the Church is now experiencing a unique case. As we know, the main reason why Pope Benedict renounced the papacy was because he wasn’t able to resist the lavender mafia at the Vatican. In the United States, a large number of abuse cases were by priests who were enabled [or mishandled] by bishops who appeared to be part of the lavender mafia. The Sipe letter, although it contained some flaws, further exposed this network, and the Vigano letter links the American network into the Vatican and even Francis himself.
[1 of 3 – Continued]
Pope Benedict resigned because he was old. He did not feel he could do the work.
He would not have resigned if there was this Lavender Mafia that was so powerful it could elect the next Pope-unless he was one of them.
If the Lavender Mafia is powerful enough to elect a Pope, they can elect the next person, too.
I responded to you below. Please refer to my post addressed to “Anonymous (9/15 at 9:37 am).”
In short, Benedict XVI resigned because he wasn’t able to suppress the lavender mafia. In the ultimate irony, he was replaced by the lavender mafia. Therefore, any reform from Francis will be inherently self-defeating and will only be a show piece for the public. Furthermore, I suspect that the lavender mafia has sought power to ultimately separate the Church from her foundation. If true, the Church is in an existential struggle.
[2 of 3 – Continued]
For this reason, I’ve been hearing Catholics advocating for turning everything over to secular prosecutors in an attempt to rid the Church of this spiritual disease. This is akin to chemotherapy that damages the body to kill the cancer. I, myself, prefer the Benedict XVI approach of quietly naming good bishops to replace the corrupt. But Francis abandoned this approach, thus leaving “chemotherapy” as the only viable option.
If Francis resigns, we can avert the catastrophe.
[3 of 3 – End]
You want secular prosecutors. Secular people don’t see anything wrong with homosexuality.
Anonymous (9/15 at 10:13 pm)
The complete turning over of records to secular prosecutors is more the opinion of others. I, myself, am in a quandary.
In a best case, Francis dies next year. A new conclave [shocked by the damage] elects an exceptional Pope who repairs the damage. In this case, I don’t prefer the “turning over” approach.
In a worst case, future popes are like Francis and the Church is eventually separated from its foundation. In this case, I prefer the “turning over” approach.
While it’s true that prosecutors see nothing wrong with homosexuality, many cases of abuse still haven’t been reported. Opening the books exposes them all and their corrupt bishops.
You are hoping for someone to die? Okay. You have come off the rails.
Let me ask you thins: When you pray “Lord, have mercy. Christ, have mercy. Lord, have mercy.” who are you praying for? Yourself only? What are you praying for?
Anonymous (9/16 at 8:06 pm),
You falsely put words in my mouth. I hope that Francis claims repentance and resigns tomorrow. But if he doesn’t, I gave two scenarios based on the Lord’s action.
Steve, you wrote, “In a best case, Francis dies next year.”
You don’t understand. Get over the Lavender Mafia stuff. It has nothing or little to do with sexuality. This is a distraction. See things as the Lord sees them. Sin is sin.
Anonymous (9/16 at 12:37 am)
I completely disagree that our problems have nothing to do with the lavender mafia. If you’re correct, what exactly are our problems? Please be more specific than mentioning generic sin as the culprit.
Anonymous (9/15 at 9:37 am)
It’s true that Benedict resigned because he felt that he was too old to do the work. It was also reported that part of this work was resisting the lavender mafia in the Vatican. The College of Cardinals, however, is different than the Vatican bureaucracy and previously had elected Benedict. It’s obvious to me that Pope Benedict felt that the College would elect a good man.
I ran into a Catholic who had been in US and Italy the last few weeks and he knew nothing about all this. After I explained to him about the Vigano letter, his words were “I don’t think that’s that bad.”
Secular people see this as infighting in the Church and they are not sympathetic to the conservative wing.
The best Catholic I know, one who really lives the Gospel, thinks it is a persecution of Francis.
The pious people say “The devil is the one who accuses the brethren.”
Catholics must do what they have to do regardless of secular, popular opinion. In regard to your comment, “The pious people say ‘The devil is the one who accuses the brethren,’” St. Paul would strongly disagree with you.
Not only did St. Paul trust those who accused a fellow brethren, but he instructed that the man be excommunicated (ref: 1 Corinthians 5).
I think you need to read a lot more of St. Paul.
I have — multiple times. St. Paul also says that we should judge our fellow Christian and give fraternal correction. This is not to be confused with judging souls to Hell which is condemned.
Are you sure you’ve read St. Paul?
Multiple times. People love the end of Romans 1 but they forget the beginning of Romans 2.
Everyone needs to do the same things to become holy. Abandon sin even venial sin. Self-denial. Practice the virtues. Do not gossip. Mind your own business. Do not bear false witness. People are not convicted on the testimony of one person.
Satan is the accuser. Jesus is the Redeemer. The Blessed Virgin is the refuge of sinners.
Consecrate yourself to the Immaculate Heart and never attack a priest.
I’m sorry… he has no credibility until he answers Vigano’s allegations. Nothing he says or does matters until he responds to what Vigano has said. You think any CEO or any head of state would be allowed by the press and by citizens or by shareholders to remain in power and be silent about such severe and credible charges of coverup, deceit and corruption? No. So why is Francis getting a pass?
What’s Latin for “too little, too late”?
And it should be called a “valley” not a “summit.”
“Carlos” is correct: Francis must address Abp. Vigano’s allegations as a first step to anything. Of course, the Pope will not see it this way, preferring to establish his defenses and assuring his continuation. Review the sordid history of Francis’s Argentinian experience in Henry Sire’s, “Dictator Pope.” More of the same approach is coming. Why, for example, would Francis wait until February to schedule a Synod on protecting child from clerical sex abuse? (Of course, even this focus is a give-away as the problem in the Church is homosexual clergy, not a murky concept of “predator.”) Second “Of Course”: the smart money is on the view that Francis has no answer to Vigano, except, “you are correct; I resign.”
The abuses happenned during John, Paul, John Paul, & Benedicts’s reigns. Francis is trying to clean up the aftermath of their turning the other cheek for decades and decades. Francis was the first to remove bishops for their actions and inactions. Why is it Francis who must resign?
Two immediate responses: (1) Correct — the Johns and Paul and Benedict popes are complicit to some extent, how much is of yet unclear, regarding the growth and infiltration of homosexuals in Catholic leadership positions and in seminaries; and (2) Wrong — Benedict did remove bishops and priests for sexual immorality and Francis is no reformer. In fact, the current literature seems to support the view that Francis effectively doubled down on inviting homosexualists into the Church by appointing C. Daneels, Cupich, Tobin and many others. However, the record of all these popes demands a thorough investigation and a return to full Catholic Tradition.
It’s true that John Paul had a mixed record with naming bishops. Pope Benedict, on the other hand, seemed to have learned from his mistakes and name very good bishops. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but do you think there’s a reason why there weren’t any L.A. priests elevated to the episcopacy during the Benedict pontificate?
Folks, let us not be under no illusion here. There are those on the right in the Church who are using this current affair to harm or unseat Pope Francis. They don’t like Francis and they certainly don’t like McCarrick’s politics, and so are using his weakness and sins as a hammer to bring the Pope down. This is plain truth. This is about politics, not about care for the vulnerable in the Church, her children. The Dallas Charter may need an additional stipulation to require bishops to report accusations against them, that’s all well and good. But asking Francis to resign?? Folks, you’re all laughable.
Actually its you who are laughable. You abuse people on this site, and then defend a so called Pope who is probably complicit in the covering up of sexual abuse throughout the Church. This pope has NO CREDIBILITY anymore, he has broken his own zero tolerance policy and is on record on had verbally chastising sexual abuse victims in Chile. The Church needs to be purged of perverts and their enablers … END OF STORY
Nobody cares what you have to say here.
jon is one of the few non-cafeteria catholics that post here. His contributions are welcome.
Um, jon dissents on the death penalty. He says it should be abolished and Catholic dogma is that its valid.
“A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.” —Pope Saint John Paul II’s homily at the Papal Mass in the Trans World Dome, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999. Listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life!
The time to respect life was before the murderer killed. Murderers have to be executed PRECISELY out of respect for life: the life of the innocent victim. Oh, and retributive justice is no small part of it too. The pope’s mercy is a false, fake mercy. PC mercy. Not authentic.
Let’s see now: who are we to believe? Angry Bob, or the three men who were chosen by the Holy Spirit to succeed St. Peter, namely Popes John Paul II, Benedict, and Francis? I don’t know about you, but I’d rather get into the barque of Peter than in the little tugboat of an “Angry Bob.” Folks, listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life!
I don’t think it’s laughable at all. People don’t realize how they are exposing themselves as narcissistic and arrogant. It is just vindictive and mean. People who can’t do the basics of Christianity think the chosen should bend to their will..
Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me? Credible accusations that the pope himself is corrupt and has covertly enabled and promoted a network of homosexual deviants in the highest echelons of the Church have been levied and you think it’s just a political power play? You want to distract and divert like Cupich by saying that the Church has more important things to do? If Francis is as corrupt as Vigano has alleged, then he has to go. For the good of the Church. Sorry your precious, illicit change in the CCC made by Francis about the death penalty won’t stand the test of time and will be reversed by a future faithful, knowledgeable pope.
“Nearly,” as for the death penalty, for you to realize how correct Pope Francis is you only have to read what John Paul II had written (in his Letters and Encyclicals) and had said (speeches and homilies), as well as what Pope Benedict had written and said about the subject. Pope Francis matches and is in sync TOTALLY with JP2’s and BXVI’s magisterium on this issue. As for this “power play,” yep, that’s what it is alright. It’s demonic how those who “hate” Francis are using still unproven, unsubstantiated claims to bring him down, under the guise of concern for the abuse of minors. Pathetic.
Pathetic? You certainly are. You wrote above that Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis “were chosen by the Holy Spirit”. That idea was specifically repudiated by Benedict XVI, who stated that it was the CARDINALS who selected the Pope. While the Holy Spirit guides the Pope, the Holy Spirit “had no horse” in the Conclave which elects him, Benedict made perfectly clear. Then you asked “[w]ho are we to believe?”. You, the author of such phrases as “let us not be under NO illusion here”?? Leads me to question if your unsubstantiated pontifications are any more accurate than your grammar.
AD, you’ve basically just made my point. Inasmuch as the cardinal-electors are “docile” to the Sprit’s promptings and actions, they will choose the one God intends and has CHOSEN to succeed in Peter’s throne. “Docility” to the action of the Spirit is the one admonition Pope Benedict himself mentioned in his final remarks to the Cardinals before his resignation. Moreover, the legitimate achievements of the Johannine-Pauline and the Benedictine pontificates clearly show that the cardinals were indeed docile. As for Pope Francis, the fact that the Holy Father seems to be unsettling the right people indicates to me that Francis is the one God intends and wills to succeed Peter’s throne. I hope that helps you.
Hooray! Applause! Thank you! Right on! Bravissimo!
“AD”: You are wrong to say that the “Holy Spirit ‘had no horse'” in the conclave. Inasmuch as the cardinal-electors are “docile” to the action of the Holy Spirit, they will choose the right man whom God wills and has chosen to succeed in Peter’s throne. I mean, Pope Benedict’s words to the cardinals before his resignation–which you yourself referred to–proves this: “I shall continue to be close to you with my prayers, especially in these coming days, that you may be completely docile to the action of the Holy Spirit in the election of the new pope. May the Lord show you the one whom He wants.” God wanted (has chosen) John Paul II, Benedict, and Francis.
The Conclave is a “fellowship of prayer”. it is taken very seriously. The Cardinals try to listen to the Holy Spirit as best they can but there human discernment as well. It is not a sleazy board room fight. Every Cardinal elector has to take an oath.
Folks, when someone disparages you or makes you feel bad for doing or believing the right thing, you’re being gaslighted. jon, for instance, above says people concerned about the Vigano letter’s implications for Pope Francis’ ability and suitability to govern the church are the ones who are wrong because they “don’t like Francis” and “don’t like McCarrick’s politics” and are using “sins as a hammer” against the Pope. Then he says such people aren’t concerned about the lowly ones and are just playing politics. Gaslighting is the use of lies and derision to make a good person who is pursuing the truth doubt himself. Don’t be gaslighted. Least of all by jon.
The truth?? Andy, the truth is that there are folks out there who call themselves Catholic, mind you, who dislike and even hate the Holy Father. These folks did not like when they heard that this man McCarrick (elevated by JP2 to the cardinalate) may have played a hand in getting Francis elected, in spite of allegedly having restrictions placed on him by Benedict, whatever that means. I submit that it is hatred for Francis that is fueling all of this among those in the “right” of the Church, and hatred for the Church among the “progressive leftists”.
There was nothing wrong with jon’s post. There was no gaslighting in it. I am sorry if he made you feel bad about yourself.
If you are Cardinal of the Church then you might be thinking about Pope Francis’ ability and suitability to govern the Church, (although I doubt many of them are.) You cannot force him to resign. If he is coerced into resigning, his resignation is invalid and he is still the Pope.
As laity you can have an opinion but it is just your opinion and it is based on hearsay. The Catholics who think that the Pope should resign are in the great minority.
I, for one, have too much respect for the pontificate to stoop so low as to call for Francis’s removal based on politics. The problem is that many have witnessed in California the corruption and power hunger of Mahony and his cohorts. While I didn’t have any evidence, I stayed quiet about any link to Francis other than the fact that it was rumored that Mahony was one of the main proponents of Francis in the conclave. But the Vigano letter laid bare what many had suspected: that Mahony and his corrupt circle had finally claimed the Pontificate.
The fallout is that the massive destruction that happened in Los Angeles is now poised for the entire Latin Rite. This is not about politics as usual.
Steve Sietz, I think your analysis is colored by whatever experience you had with Cardinal Mahoney. You may want to backspace a minute and take that out and reanalyze.
What do you find wrong with my analysis?
I think it completely ignores God.
Could you please elaborate further since I’m still not completely certain what your point is?
The country is going away the Mahoney era “destruction.” I was visiting in the Diocese of Orange when an announcement was made that they will now kneel after the Agnus Dei. Kneeling had been forbidden and those who kneeled were controversial in that Diocese, even to the point where their old bishop pulled some poor woman up when she tried to kneel for communion.
We always have to make sure that we don’t sin and that we don’t become the accomplice of sin. Sins of the tongue are very frequent here.
As for Pope Francis, if you obey what he tells you to do, you will go to heaven when you die. You will be a saint.
Anonymous (9/16 at 12:22 pm),
Who told you that everyone who “obeys what the Pope tell you to do” will go to heaven? This sounds eerily familiar.
Steve, have you read Guadete et Exsultate?
I think your comments here are influenced by a blind obedience to corrupt clergy.
Please note that I asked for a vetting of my analysis. Instead, you made a false accusation. So I ask another question. Who are the corrupt clergy to whom I have blind obedience?
That was a different anonymous person. i think that anonymous’ jerky comment was aimed at the anonymous person who challenged you.
Great! I’m so relieved. :)
“jon” (or your George Soros ghost-writer), you are wrong again. The central problem with the institutional Church is that its leaders have, in the main, lost the True Faith. Their embrace of homosexuality is entirely disgusting and vile, but understandable: they need to have some core beliefs, right? Come on, “jon,” don’t deny these evil doers their own tree house.
Francis will fall, along with McCarrick, Wuerl, Cupich and all the rest, because he should get what he desires. He elected his own path (just like those in Hell).
The left is scared witless that francis is going to be paralyzed by scandal and that all his herectical things will be overturned in the future by the next pope
To say, as “St. Chris” just did, that the Pope and the bishops have “lost the True Faith” is heretical. Sorry. Folks, errors like “St. Chris’s” this must not be allowed by stand, but must be called out. Such heresies have been called out by Pius IX’s “Collection of Modernist Errors”, by Leo XIII’s “Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae”; by Bellarimine, and by the First and Second Vatican Councils. Beware! Beware!
jon, you make a good point. That person writes a lot of error. While we all make mistakes. he seems kind of wedded to his own personal version of Catholicism and he isn’t going to change. I appreciate the efforts you make to keep things Catholic here.
No, it’s entirely possible for a pope, bishop, priest or layman to become a heretic. Claiming that someone has lost the true faith isn’t heretical, it’s a prudential judgment that is either correct or not. You are claiming that the possible is impossible. Nonsense!
According to the CDF Document “Donum Veritatis” (17) and by St. Robert Bellarmine (De Controversiis, Book 4)–among other sources–the Magisterium is guaranteed divine protection when teaching doctrine that must be adhered to by all of the faithful. Because of this divine protection, yes, it is indeed impossible for the Magisterium to fall into formal heresy when teaching the entire Church on matters of faith and morals. And today is St. Robert Bellarmine’s feast day. Thank you Saint Robert and pray for us.
Angry Bob, it is not a prudential judgement. It is just a judgement and it is extremely imprudent to make a judgement like that.
It is possible for a bishop, priest or layman to become a heretic. There are examples of this. I believe the Pope has divine protection. We know he has it in teaching.
I do not think you are heretical for believing what you believe, but it is an error.
I think you can always be better educated in the Faith.
Saint John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI called committees together to study the Church’s historical teachings to help them learn.
So you jon the pseudo-intellectual accuses others of heresy. I call you out for your nonsense “living magiesterium” made up by you out of whole cloth
The phrase “living Magisterium” comes directly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (889): “In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a ‘supernatural sense of faith’ the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, ‘unfailingly adheres to this faith.'” The living Magisterium is the Holy Father and the bishops united to him. Adhere to them, then you adhere to the true Catholic Faith. That’s the point of…
Catechism #889. Listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life!
Pope Francis told the Italian bishops not to let homosexuals into the seminary programs. If they had any doubts, better not let them in.
I know people now want to paint Pope Francis as part of the gay mafia but they are wrong. Pope Francis is a saint.
Jon, it’s not the right wing of the laity that has been sexually abusing anyone it could get it’s hands on. Leftists like you blame everyone but the responsible parties, which in this case, includes a cardinal and a pope. I’m sure you’re trying to find a way to blame it all on Trump.
Since the Vigano letter, which opened the door for those who know something that should be reported to bring things put into the open, I have only seen one allegation against a bishop. The one incident that was reported was against a “conservative” bishop.
kristin and others: why waste your time and words responding to “jon”. can’t you see by now that he is a theological and canon law illiterate, and a syncophant to boot?
Really? Go ahead and prove it. Prove by quoting whichever words of mine that betrayed my illiteracy with respect to canon law or theology. A person making a claim is duty-bound to prove it when called upon. I am calling upon you, as the accuser, to prove your claims about me.
ok, jon—here goes. it has been the constant teaching of the Church’s ordinary infallible magisterium [do you know what term means, jon?] that the taking of life by legitimate civil authority IS NOT INTRINSICALLY EVIL. That remains the teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter. Mind you, this is NOT the same as saying capital punishment by legitimate civil authority is ALWAYS just and therefore permissible. It just means that the Church continues to teach that in some instances it is permissible. What those circumstances are, in light of the vast improvement in methods to keep harm-doers constrained, are open to sincere prudential judgment. The inclusion of John Paul II’s and Francis’s words in the Catechism cannot change the…
GRADUATE, nice try, but sorry to say that what you typed there are NOT my words. That doesn’t even come close to anything I had written. What you have written there is your very imperfect interpretation of what you think I may have said.
text to jon, below—cont’d from 16 sept @ 2:57 p.m.:
doctrinal note [know what that means, jon?] afforded to the teaching of the ordinary infallible magisterium–which holds that capital punishment is NOT intrinsically evil. Therefore it cannot be “certainly impermissible”, as Francis would have it.
“Graduate…”, my time my words, I’ll spend them as I like. Chuckleheads have to be slapped down, just as trash needs to be taken out before it stinks. “jon” will burn a lot of energy ranting about all of this and will further reveal his character. Some folks on this site will need that extra clarity.
Graduate, the prudential judgement is that it is inadmissible..
It takes at most two days to fly to Rome. How about a week from next Monday? Why wait four months? Move !
A skype or facetime conference could be arranged in less time than that. This meeting is just a delay tactic. They’re not serious about fixing problems nor eliminating corruption. The Church is like the mafia in too many ways now. Do you think the mafia will reform itself?
PF meets with himself; confers with himself;
fashions his own solution and calls it good.
Thanks a yahoo PF
The so-called summit is scheduled to take place five months from now. Hey, why the hurry? It’s not as though there’s anything like a crisis. Plenty of time. After all, it is the Eternal City.
Can’t help it… more and more when I see photos like that I think I’m looking at an actor.
Kristin, I meant no offense. And you are correct: in jon’s mind he is NEVER wrong, even though his theological understanding is infantile. His attitude is insufferably pompous. Almost all posters here see through him and his pretensions. Being kind to jon gets you nowhere. And it might even be sadistic, by being kind to a masochist.
May I ask if your graduate degree is in theology and canon law? Could you tell us where it is from?
Why are you targeting jon?