Another prophetic commentary from Questions from a Ewe http://questionsfromaewe.blogspot.ie/2018/01/poverty-pimping.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+QuestionsFromAEwe+(Questions+from+a+Ewe)

Lay Group from Osorno in Chile responds to Pope Francis A esto varias ideas: 1. El escándalo fue por las palabras calumnias, no pruebas. La distinción con evidencia la encuentro del todo irrelevante. Y nada dice. 2. Sobre las pruebas, i) él dice que los testimonios siempre son evidencias. Pero Juan Carlos Cruz le entregó una carta en Nunciatura en 2015. ¿No la recibió? ¿El Nuncio Scapolo también se la bloqueó? ii) Los testimonios de víctimas y testigos que declararon en los procesos penal y canónico implicando a Barros (que le fueron suficiente a los tribunales) ¿no le bastan? 3. Sobre la presunción de inocencia, debe comprender que es un derecho humano que pone límite a la arbitrariedad del Estado a través de sus tribunales. O sea, es un mandato a los tribunales no a las personas. Ante eso, ¿es el Papa un tribunal? En materia de fe y sacramentos, lo creo, pero en delitos (que en muchas legislaciones son crímenes de lesahumanidad imprescriptibles) NO LO ES. Además, en Chile no hay concordato que le confiera competencia en materia de delito. 4. La pregunta que debe hacerse el Papa (que no es tribunal) es si la permanencia del Obispo Barros es signo de unidad y si permite llevar la humanidad a Dios, y Dios a la humanidad. 5. Sus dichos de que el Obispo Barros presentó dos veces su renuncia pero que él se la negó, le confiere la responsabilidad exclusiva de lo que vivimos. O sea, el Papa es el responsable de todo lo que hemos tenido que vivir (sufrir) y de la exposición del obispo Barros. O sea, el Papa es cruel con nosotros y el obispo. En sus propios términos usados en el Parque O´Higgins, no sólo no hizo el bien sino que pudiendo hacerlo, no evitó el mal. 6. El Papa nada dice de la carta filtrada. ¿No le escribe a Ezzati que quiso sacar a Barros pero que el Nuncio se lo impidió? ¿En qué quedamos? ¿Nos mintió a todos en el avión o le mintió a Ezzati ocultando que nunca quiso sacarlo? 7. Finalmente, que el Papa se ponga de acuerdo... ¿tratará o no de calumniadores a las víctimas de abuso a los que los tribunales chilenos y vaticanos le dieron la razón? Si no aclara eso, ¿qué incentivo tendrán las víctimas de abusos a hablar si es que finalmente, por más que tengan razón, para el Papa siempre serán mentirosos? Juan Carlos Claret P. Vocero Laicos y Laicas de Osorno +56 9 7783 9853

Marie Collins on Twitter 22 January 2018 ‏ I have been asked by media to comment on the words of the Pope today on the Commission for Protection of Minors and Barros “evidence”. Why comment? It’s a pointless waste of effort. Sorry for such a negative non comment it’s just the way I feel right now. Marie Collins ‏ The Pope is reported as unconcerned by the month long delay in member appointments to PCPM, the proposed names are being vetted by the Roman Curia. These facts says all that is needed to be said about the priority being given to this Commission and this issue in the Vatican #PCPM

The letter Juan Cruz sent to the Vatican about Bishop Barros

Pope Francis' press conference on flight

Important Insights from Chile

Pope Francis continues to back Bishop Barros

Pope Francis twice refused the resignation of Bishop Barros

Clerical sex abuse reports increasing in Argentina

Less than 100 Catholic marriage annulments in Northern Ireland in 2017 https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/fewer-catholics-seek-marriage-annulments-in-northern-ireland-36514790.html

THE PONTIFICAL COMMISSION FOR THE PROTECTION OF MINORS from Marie Collins blog 17th January 2018 What is happening with the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors (PCPM)? Why has it been allowed to fall into abeyance? Why has there been no official statement of explanation? It is now one month since members’ appointments for the first three year term of the PCPM expired - 17h December 2017. So far no announcement has been made as to which of the former members will be reappointed for a second term or what new members will be joining. Fr. Hans Zollner (a first term member) in a tweet on 13th December said a “new term” of the Commission “will start in 2018” . Later the same day in another tweet he said "we have sent in names for members, we'll need to wait until new membership is appointed” The next proposed meeting of the PCPM is in four months’ time – April – is that when it is intended the next term will begin? Emer McCarthy, the commission's projects manager and media coordinator, when asked by the NCR [1] if Fr. Zollner's comments meant that the commission would go into an inactive state Dec. 17 last is quoted as saying "The only response I can give is that we await the Holy Father’s decision regarding future membership." "As soon as we have any news we will be in contact to inform the press and the public” Since then silence. I resigned my membership of the Commission in March 2017 primarily due to lack of co-operation by some curia departments with the Commission but for other reasons also. One of these was the steady erosion of the independence of the members. In the beginning members and public alike were assured the PCPM would be independent from the control of any Vatican department, the members would decide their own working methods and projects and would be responsible directly to the Holy Father. During the first term my experience was of a determined effort to undermine all this and shift the planning, work and its’ control to the Commission’s permanent administration within the Vatican. I objected to these moves during my term but failed to prevent their steady advance. My concern at this point is that what we are seeing is a further manifestation of this shift in the status of the PCPM from an independent entity to just another permanent Vatican Department controlling a membership which will meet less often and have little real power. It appears to me that the obvious lack of urgency or any slight of concern in the Vatican about the Commissions’ current status reflects how unimportant the membership is considered. Also the low priority being given to this issue of child protection despite the assurances so often given by the Pope and others that it has the highest priority! A statement by Emer McCarthy speaking of the administrative office (on Twitter 14th Dec 17) intended to reassure a concerned survivor “We are indeed working away. Our members have laid good foundations in the first three years, now we must build on them”. The “we” here being, it would appear, the administration. This was no reassurance at all if you do not want to see the work and control of the PCPM centered within a permanent Vatican department rather than within its’ expert membership. We know the issue of child protection in the church (the sexual abuse of children in particular) was in the hands of internal Vatican departments before the setting up of the PCPM and we also know what a disaster that was for so many children and families. Do we wish to go back there? ​ There was a promise from Cardinal Sean O’Malley President of the PCPM at the very beginning that it would work transparently. Where is that transparency now? If anyone is in doubt about the duration of the first term of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors it can be seen clearly in the members’ letters of appointment - a copy of mine is here [2] [1] https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/ -commission-member-suggests-francis-may-let-group-lapse-temporarily [2] http://www.mariecollins.net/documenrts.html