The National Catholic Register published the following:

Ex-Nuncio Accuses Pope Francis of Failing to Act on McCarrick’s Abuse:
In a written testimony, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò claims Pope Francis withdrew sanctions against Archbishop Theodore McCarrick

For all the talk, early in his pontificate, about his being a reformist Pope, the real truth is that he has been an obstacle to real reform the entire time he has been there. Another example is his scuttling of Pope Benedict's financial reforms of the Vatican Bank, Pope Benedict had authorized a full, independent audit of Vatican finances by Price Waterhouse, and one of the first things Francis did was cancel the audit, 5 years later, still no audit has been performed, and all the financial reforms that were put in place by Benedict in the last 1-2 years of his pontificate, which were aimed at rooting out corruption, ending money laundering and ensuring transparency, have been reversed.

Here is the English language version of Archbishop Viganò's 11-page testimony.

And here is a blockbuster excerpt:

Not going to happen.

I don’t think he’s as humble as he appears....he still has not answered the Dubia.

He has repeatedly said that he intends to resign before he dies in office. Whether he would do so as a result of scandal is an open question until it happens.

I hope he does. ASAP.

I read about stuff that happened in the Church hundreds of years ago and think those were strange times. But now we’ve got these massive scandals, with a Pope that borderlines on teaching error, a living resigned Pope, a Pope that could resign, and a Church in confusion....not to mention the Apparition at Fatima and the fallout from that....

I know the end probably isn’t near, but sometimes it seems its just days away....

you lost me on that one.... please elaborate

I'm guessing it's about the (non?) consecration of Russia to our Lady, but I dunno.

There is small likelihood that Pope Francis would resign due to pressure. It would be like Denethor submitting to Aragorn!

According to the Catholic Herald, his response has been he will not say one-word about the report.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/20 ... -cover-up/

They said the same thing about Charles DeGaulle and Richard Nixon. Of the three (Francis, DeGaulle, and Nixon) I'd say the one least likely to resign due to external pressure was DeGaulle, Mr. Divine Destiny himself, and yet he did.

If Nixon had not resigned, he would have been impeached and convicted. We don't have a process in the Church for that.

De Gaulle resigned as a political ploy. I don't think this would work for Pope Francis (it didn't work for de Gaulle) because ordinary Catholics don't get a say in who would be elected Pope - there isn't going to be a mob pressuring the Conclave to re-elect Francis.

I think he's just stubborn and arrogant enough to stay at all cost. If he gets pressured enough, maybe it will take a health toll, but otherwise, he's here for another synod or two.

I would not expect a resignation from Pope Francis while he remains in good health.

If he doesn't resign then he should forced out. We may not have had the "process" with which to do such things in the past, but since he's all about change, then high-time we implement a new means of dealing with such "whited sepulchers," least we continue to be led astray by false priests who use the Church as a means to commit acts of evil.

And THAT is what has been going on - people are using Christ, the Bible, and the authority of God the Father and His Church to commit acts of pure evil. And when people try to stand up to them, they and their blind followers condemn and shame people into silence. I've even had people on this board try to get on my case when phony-Mahoney was in charge of the LA Church and I called him out as a fraud. And he is 100% a fraud.

Enough with the kid gloves - it's like a mafia ring going on here. In order to save the Church, these fake priests need to be expunged.

THERE'S NO OTHER WAY.

Get 'em out!

Since there have been popes who were removed (i. e. Pope Benedict IX), there must be some procedure that was used.

But in his case, an emperor and a council were involved. I see zero chance of Pope Francis being deposed.

It is neither lawful nor even possible to depose a Pope. One can claim to have deposed a Pope, but that is it.

No council.

Just an Emperor. Henry III deposed him with an army.

Now, of course he resigned (for a third and final time). But the resignation was after his army lost control to Henry III's. It was under pressure.

Centuries later, Constance-Basel brought pressure as well. But they needed the claimants to resign.

Now, it is an open question as to if a pope can fall into public heresy. If he can and does he ceases to be a member of the Church, and hence loses his office. But then the debate is who can adjudicate this as having happened?

Either the bishops collectively, but that is hard to distinguish from judging the Roman See, or only a successor (likely with a council too)

I hold that popes can fall into public heresy ( after all, esse posse importat) but lean to, can only be formally adjudicated by a future pope