Addressing the 'proofs' against Viganò:
Noise without substance
Translated for 1Peter5 by Giuseppe Pellegrino from
August 30, 2018
Editor's note: Aldo Maria Valli, the author of the following article, is the reporter with whom Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò originally planned the publication of his allegations against Pope Francis and several high-ranking Vatican cardinals. [Viganò's final statement was then re-worked for publication with Marco Tosatti.]
Recent comments by various journalists on the controversy surrounding Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò after the publication of his "Testimony' attempt to discredit the former nuncio to the United States.
In particular, it was noted that, in May 2012, at a gala dinner in New York, Viganò spoke words of kindness and esteem for Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, even though he already knew that the cardinal had been sanctioned by Pope Benedict XVI, who had asked McCarrick not to attend public ceremonies and not to travel.
A video from that event, the World Mission Dinner of the Pontifical Mission Societies, which took place at a Manhattan hotel, shows Nuncio Viganò open his remarks by greeting Cardinal McCarrick first of all, saying: "Distinguished guests, bishops who are present, and guests who are being honored this evening as "Pontifical Ambassadors of the Missions" - what a beautiful title first of all, His Eminence Cardinal McCarrick, already an ambassador for some time, as priest, bishop, archbishop, cardinal, and all of us wish him well.. ."
According to some people, these words are the proof that Viganò is lying. In his memoir, Viganò accuses McCarrick of not having respected the sanctions imposed on him by Pope Benedict XVI, but during that same period of time, [as the video shows], "Viganò publicly praised McCarrick". In my opinion, the video proves no such thing. Let's think about the circumstances.
In May 2012, Viganò had been nuncio to the United States for only a few months (since November 2011). He attends one of his first public high-profile events as the ambassador of the Holy See. The occasion is very prestigious.
When a cardinal is present at such an event, from the point of view of the hierarchy, the nuncio [who is only an archbishop] ranks below him and is bound by protocol to greet the cardinal first in his remarks and to speak some words in his honor.
Now, in that situation, what should Nuncio Viganò have done? Ignore McCarrick? Or say publicly in his remarks: "Your Eminence, I ought to greet you but I will not, because you are a scoundrel"? Or expose him to public ridicule and say, "Here tonight is Cardinal McCarrick, who takes seminarians to bed with him and has been sanctioned by the pope. I greet him!"
It is obvious that on such an occasion, the nuncio, who is the personal representative of the pope, plays the role of the diplomat he is supposed to be - that is,
he does not state publicly either what he knows or what he personally feels about it. Ambassadors often have to hide their personal emotions in order to save appearances. It is simply a part of their job, often unappreciated.
Thus, Viganò makes his greeting. He does so at arm's length, without any particular emphasis, and God alone can know what was going on inside the soul of the nuncio at that particular moment. But then he is expected to say some words of praise. Viganò says with regard to McCarrick that "we all wish him well".Isn't this what a Christian should do? To wish well for the sinner, despite his sin? It seems to me that by using that expression, Viganò did quite well.
Although he was only at the beginning of his assignment and thus still not very experienced as nuncio, he held his feelings at bay and respected the exigencies of protocol. I repeat:
In these situations, an ambassador is bound to act in this way, to act as if he knows nothing, without letting anything leak out. If Viganò had not acted in this way, he would have given scandal and betrayed the trust of the pope.
You will ask: but why did McCarrick not respect the orders of Pope Benedict XVI and instead go around in public freely? That's a good question. It's the same question Viganò asked, which led him to conclude that McCarrick was protected by somebody very high up who intended to make a fool of Pope Benedict himself.
But now we come to a second video that is circulating, which, according to some commentators, once again shows that Viganò is a liar. This is a video related to the first one, showing a brief encounter between Archbishop Viganò and Pope Francis, at the end of the official meeting of nuncios with the Holy Father in June 2013.
In his memoir, Viganò recalls that the pope, without any preface, barked an order to him in a tone of rebuke, saying, "The bishops of the United States must not be ideologized! They must be pastors!"
[What was Bergoglio barking about? When he himself, who is the ultimate secular anti-Catholic ideolog, has been responsible for 'ideologizing' all the cardinals, priests and bishops who have chosen to cast their lot with him!]
Those who are contesting Viganò's version of events and calling him a liar are now claiming that this video shows a pope who is initially smiling, in no way aggressive, who, upon learning that he has the nuncio to the United States in front of him, begins a discourse. Well, we can prove nothing about this discourse, because the [official Vatican] video, as often happens in these cases, has been cut in such a way that it does not show the private content of the conversation.
But it seems to me completely understandable that Viganò in his recollection of that moment, held in his memory not so much the initial smile of the pope (who in these situations smiles equally at everybody in the same way), but rather the content of the brief conversation that followed. This is why, in his memoir, Viganò says the pope, without any preceding remarks, gave him an order in a reproving tone.
In reality, this is probably exactly what happened. After the initial smile, the pope immediately began to speak with Viganò, but we don't know what followed because the video doesn't show it.
At this point I would like to emphasize that,
if I reply to critical observations and accusations against Viganò, I am not doing so in order to save Archbishop Viganò, but rather out of respect for the truth, and because it seems unjust that such heavy accusations, such as being a liar, are being so freely circulated.
And finally, a response to those who are maintaining that Viganòhas also committed perjury, because, by publishing his memoir, he has violated the pontifical secret that he was sworn to uphold as nuncio. On this point we can observe that
the 'secret' of which we are speaking is not of a sacramental nature. It is not - just to be clear - like the seal that binds a confessor [in the Sacrament of Penance]. The secret that binds a nuncio functions in the service of the Church and her action in the world.
But if this secret comes to be used not for the good of the Church, but rather against her - that is, if it becomes a conspiracy of silence [
omerta] to cover up a lobby, whoever becomes aware of this perversion not only can, but should violate the secret. It is his duty for the good of the Church, in the name of the truth.
I repeat one more time that if I have wanted to respond to the accusations against Viganò;, I do so not to enter into conflict with other observers and commentators. I believe rather that
in this whole affair, we must scrupulously avoid descending down to the level of personal attacks.
What is needed instead is to keep our eyes fixed on the key question: the moral corruption denounced by Viganò - a corruption that, according to the former nuncio, has now reached the highest levels of the Church, so much so that an action of force is necessary, such as the publication of his memoir, in order to bring about the beginning of a purification.
On LifeSite, Vigano explains why Benedict XVI's sanctions against then Cardinal McCarrick were privately made:
EXCLUSIVE: Viganò says McCarrick was restricted
under Benedict XVI, but 'he didn't obey'
by Lisa Bourne
August 31, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) - Disgraced ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick continued making public appearances after Pope Benedict XVI had imposed sanctions upon him because 'he didn't obey' the Holy Father, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganòtold LifeSiteNews in an exclusive interview.
The former papal nuncio to the U.S. responded to efforts in the media to question his testimony that Pope Francis covered-up for McCarrick while knowing of his reputation for sexual abuse of seminarians and priests.
Viganò reiterated in the interview that he had spoken with McCarrick about the restrictions Benedict had put upon him, but that as nuncio he did not have authority to enforce those restrictions. "I was not in the position of enforcing", Viganò told LifeSiteNews, "especially because the measures (sanctions) given to McCarrick (were made) in a private way. That was the decision of Pope Benedict".
Viganò said Pope Benedict made McCarrick's sanctions private, perhaps
"due to the fact that he (McCarrick) was already retired, maybe due to the fact that he (Benedict) was thinking he was ready to obey". But, McCarrick, "certainly didn't obey", Viganò told LifeSiteNews.
Various media outlets have published reports attempting to cast into doubt Viganò and his detailed testimony released August 25 implicating Pope Francis and other top prelates in covering up for McCarrick despite knowing he was a serial sexual abuser of seminarians and priests.
One of the elements of Viganò's testimony being questioned is whether Benedict, in fact, had put restrictions on McCarrick after learning about the allegations against the former Washington D.C. archbishop. An August 29 video produced by the US Bishops' Catholic News Service (CNS) casts uncertainty on whether Benedict had placed sanctions on McCarrick sometime between 2009 and 2010, as Viganò said in his testimony.
The video shows clips of McCarrick testifying before Congress in March 2011 on behalf of the USCCB, a January 2012 ad limina visit at the Vatican during which McCarrick concelebrated Mass and met twice with Benedict, and another May 2012 event sponsored by the Pontifical Mission Societies honoring McCarrick at which Viganò had spoken.
Viganò told LifeSiteNews he had already spoken to McCarrick at the time of the latter video clip, repeating the measures that had been taken to him by Pope Benedict, which his predecessor the late Archbishop Pietro Sambi had done as well. Viganò, nuncio from October 2011 to April 2016, explained he was just beginning his role as the Pope's representative at the time when each of the events in the various video clips edited together by CNS took place, just learning the culture and hierarchy of his new assignment in the U.S.
Aside from just beginning his mission, he said,
the nuncio is not somebody who may enforce restrictions directly, especially with a cardinal, who is considered the superior. Such an enforcement would belong to someone in the position of Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, and McCarrick successor, said Viganò.
Another clip from the CNS video showing McCarrick attending an ad limina visit in Rome and meeting Pope Benedict, seems to suggest that the cardinal had no sanctions placed on him. Viganò explained that once again, McCarrick was not obeying the restrictions placed on him and that
it was inconceivable for Benedict to take the issue up with the cardinal right then and there with all the other bishops present.
Another clip from the CNS video showing Viganò attending a Pontifical Mission Societies gala along with McCarrick seems to suggest that McCarrick had no sanctions and that Viganò did not seem 'anxious' about the cardinal's presence.
Viganò told LifeSiteNews that
he could neither forego attending the event, nor did he have an opportunity during the event to remind the cardinal of the sanctions. "I could not say, 'What are you doing here?'; he said. "Can you imagine? Nobody knew (about the sanctions), it was a private meeting (when they were levied by Benedict). So this video doesn't prove anything".
Proof of sanctions levied against McCarrick during Benedict's papacy is not confined to Viganò's testimony. A June 2014 Washington Post piece headlined "Globe-trotting Cardinal Theodore McCarrick is almost 84, and working harder than ever" highlighted just how ubiquitous McCarrick was after Francis was elected. The report confirmed he had been sidelined by Benedict, only to re-emerge under Francis:
"McCarrick is one of a number of senior churchmen who were more or less put out to pasture during the eight-year pontificate of Benedict XVI," the Post piece states. "But now Francis is pope, and prelates like Cardinal Walter Kasper (another old friend of McCarrick's) and McCarrick himself are back in the mix, and busier than ever."
The article also includes the previously reported exchange between Francis and McCarrick in which Francis was reported to have joked that the devil wasn't ready for McCarrick in hell. The Washington Post story uses the exchange as an introduction to "the improbable renaissance that McCarrick (was) enjoying" under Francis.
"I guess the Lord isn't done with me yet," he told the pope. "Or the devil doesn't have your accommodations ready!', Francis shot back with a laugh.
McCarrick loves to tell that story, because he loves to tell good stories and because he has a sense of humor as keen as the pope's. But the exchange also says a lot about the improbable renaissance that McCarrick is enjoying as he prepares to celebrate his 84th birthday in July (2014).
Detailing a handful of McCarrick's international visits after Francis's March 2013 election, the Washington Post article stated:
Sometimes McCarrick's travels abroad are at the behest of the Vatican, sometimes on behalf of Catholic Relief Services. Occasionally the U.S. State Department asks him to make a trip. But Francis, who has put the Vatican back on the geopolitical stage, knows that when he needs a savvy back channel operator he can turn to McCarrick, as he did for the Armenia trip".]
McCarrick, named a cardinal in 2001, retired in 2006, the Post article recounted, "and was sort of spinning his wheels under Benedict. Then Francis was elected, and everything changed." Later in the piece, McCarrick lauds Benedict, and implies that if he'd been asked, he would have done what Benedict wanted: "to bring the church back to where he thought it should be".
"Pope Benedict is a wonderful man, and was a good friend of mine before he became pope," McCarrick said.
"But he was anxious to bring the church back to where he thought it should be, and I guess I wasn't one of those who he thought would help him on that. I would have obviously done what he asked."
On American Conservative, Rod Dreher cites the unlikely and then- unexplained absence of McCarrick from the Annual Cardinals' Dinner at the Catholic University of America from 2007-2013, and asks:
Could it be that Archbishop Viganò is mistaken, and his 2006 memo on McCarrick [when Viganò was still in the Secretariat of State] was, in fact, taken seriously, and Benedict XVI did impose some restrictions on McCarrick shortly afterward? It would explain his absence from the Cardinals Dinner from 2007 through the rest of Benedict's pontificate.
At Catholic Herald, deputy editor Dan Hitchens plays devil's advocate to examine Vigano's principal claims on the McCarrick case. As Bergoglio has said about this case, judge for yourself, (Who is he to judge, he has infamously asked, yet here he was telling the media to judge Vigano's testimony for themselves!]:
Pope Francis and McCarrick:
Where does the evidence lead?
Archbishop Viganò made four major claims.
But do the facts support them?
by Dan Hitchens
August 31, 2018
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s testimony, published on Saturday, goes on for 7,000 words and names more than 30 public figures, mostly to denounce them. But at its heart are a small number of very serious allegations about Pope Francis’s treatment of Theodore McCarrick. Since the letter’s publication, some more evidence has emerged against which to test Viganò’s major claims. How do the allegations stand up?
Claim 1:
Pope Benedict XVI imposed sanctions on McCarrick
Viganò writes: “Pope Benedict had imposed on Cardinal McCarrick sanctions similar to those now imposed on him by Pope Francis: the Cardinal was to leave the seminary where he was living, he was forbidden to celebrate [Mass] in public, to participate in public meetings, to give lectures, to travel, with the obligation of dedicating himself to a life of prayer and penance.” These came into place, Viganò says, in 2009 or 2010.
Do the facts support the claim? Mostly – but there are complications. Several glimpses have been recorded of sanctions on McCarrick:
- The Catholic News Agency reports two eyewitness (but anonymous) accounts of McCarrick being told he had to leave the seminary on Pope Benedict’s instructions.
- On Monday, the Archdiocese of Washington confirmed that, in 2011, it had cancelled a meeting between McCarrick and young men discerning their vocation. The request came from Viganò, who was then the nuncio (Vatican representative) to the US.
- In July, the Washington Post quoted someone who “worked with McCarrick”. The source is paraphrased as saying “they suspect Church leaders in Rome had McCarrick had chastised McCarrick in some way, telling him to pull back from public life.”
- On Monday, another witness said Viganò was correct. Mgr Jean-François Lantheaume, who used to work at the nunciature in Washington DC, was asked whether it was true that Vatican officials had told McCarrick he was sanctioned. Mgr Lantheaume replied: “Viganò said the truth. That’s all.”
One complication is that not all sources have corroborated Viganò’s story. According to America magazine, some “Vatican officials … who asked not to be named said they knew nothing about sanctions or restrictions on Archbishop McCarrick.” That doesn’t discredit Viganò’s account – he always claimed that the sanctions were only communicated through a few channels – but it makes it harder to confirm.
Another complication is the numerous accounts of McCarrick turning up in public: preaching at St Patrick’s Cathedral, performing an ordination, appearing at celebratory events – in other words, not acting like a man under Vatican restrictions. Viganò’s explanation is that McCarrick “didn’t obey” the sanctions.
Indeed, the Washington Post’s source said McCarrick ignored Vatican strictures: “He did whatever he damn well wanted.”
Sometimes McCarrick even appeared at events with Viganò or Benedict. Again, Viganò has an explanation: as nuncio, he didn’t have the authority to impose sanctions directly, while Benedict was too mild-mannered to rebuke McCarrick at a public event.
The most plausible conclusion, based on what we know, is that Benedict did indeed impose sanctions, but wasn’t willing and/or able to make them comprehensive.
Claim 2:
Pope Francis was told about McCarrick’s depravity
Viganò alleges Pope Francis “knew from at least June 23, 2013 that McCarrick was a serial predator.” The date is precise because on that day, three months after Francis’s election, the new Pontiff met Viganò. At the meeting, the archbishop says, he told the Pope: “I don’t know if you know Cardinal McCarrick, but if you ask the Congregation for Bishops there is a dossier this thick about him. He corrupted generations of seminarians and priests.” He further claims that Francis did not make any comment or seem surprised.
Do the facts support the claim? Inevitably, it’s hard to say – nobody can read the Pope’s mind.
Francis is famously well-informed about Vatican goings-on, and several close observers have said that “everyone knew” about the charges against McCarrick. But that is circumstantial.
Again, it is strange that Francis has refused to comment on Viganò’s claim, but silence is not an admission. So the question is – could Viganò really invent such a spectacular libel?
Claim 3:
Francis abandoned Benedict’s sanctions
According to Viganò, when Francis became Pope, McCarrick was released from the previous sanctions: “from the time of Pope Francis’s election, McCarrick, now free from all constraints, had felt free to travel continuously, to give lectures and interviews.”
Do the facts support the claim?
The facts are, at least, not inconsistent with Viganò’s allegation. It has been widely observed that McCarrick had a new lease of life under Francis. In 2014, a highly sympathetic profile of McCarrick in the National Catholic Reporter said that
McCarrick is one of a number of senior churchmen who were more or less put out to pasture during the eight-year pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI. But now Francis is pope, and prelates like Cardinal Walter Kasper (another old friend of McCarrick’s) and McCarrick himself are back in the mix and busier than ever… [McCarrick] was sort of spinning his wheels under Benedict. Then Francis was elected, and everything changed.”
The profile said that McCarrick was making trips abroad “at the behest of the Vatican”, and that Pope Francis “knows that when he needs a savvy back-channel operator, he can turn to McCarrick, as he did for the Armenia trip.”
In the US, too, there’s some evidence that McCarrick was given more freedom. As one of Rod Dreher’s correspondents has noted,
from 2001-06 McCarrick attended each “Cardinals Dinner” hosted by the Catholic University of America. Then in 2007-12 he abruptly stopped. But in 2013, after Francis became Pope, McCarrick became a regular attendee once more. That roughly matches Viganò’s story.
It does seem, then, that whatever sanctions had been in place under Benedict evaporated under Francis. But, as observed above, the nature of those sanctions is fuzzy. How official were they? Did Francis knowingly lift the sanctions, or did they just cease to function because Benedict was no longer around?
The Associated Press, in a report which has never been denied, said that Pope Francis reduced sanctions against some abuser priests. But that doesn’t mean he would have done the same with McCarrick.
Again, Viganò’s testimony fits well with the facts. But we still have to assume that Viganò is not a liar. [But why assume, to begin with, that he is a liar???? Or would dare lie so spectacularly and publicly on matters that are for the most part easily verifiable for any journalist willing to check them out?]
Claim 4:
Francis made McCarrick an important adviser
Viganò alleges that Pope Francis made McCarrick “his trusted counsellor”. Importantly, McCarrick is supposed to have helped to pick bishops: “The appointments of Blase Cupich to Chicago and Joseph W. Tobin to Newark were orchestrated by McCarrick” and others, Viganò claims. McCarrick, the archbishop says, “had become the kingmaker for appointments in the Curia and the United States, and the most listened to advisor in the Vatican for relations with the Obama administration.”
Thanks to McCarrick, Viganò tells us, Cardinal Burke did not retain his place in the Congregation for Bishops – which plays a vital role in selecting bishops – and Cardinals Wuerl and Cupich were parachuted into the Congregation. Another McCarrick associate, Archbishop Ilson de Jesus Montanari, allegedly became Secretary of the Congregation thanks to McCarrick.
Do the facts support the claim? Broadly, yes, though not every detail can be confirmed. As recorded above, McCarrick certainly gained influence and status when Francis became Pope. The well-connected Vatican journalist Rocco Palmo, of Whispers in the Loggia, wrote in 2016 that
“Francis is said to revere [McCarrick] as ‘a hero’ of his.” Palmo has also corroborated the idea of McCarrick as kingmaker, reporting that
“in mid-Sept 2016, Card McCarrick wrote a letter to the Pope…seeking the appointment of Joe Tobin to Newark; 2 sources w/direct knowledge of it told Whispers shortly thereafter. To that point in the process, Tobin’s name hadn’t figured…”
Palmo has stood by his reporting despite what he calls “thuggish and almost unbelievable” attempts to make him renounce it.
Another Vatican journalist, Sandro Magister, reported at the time of Cupich’s appointment as Archbishop of Chicago: “The appointment of Cupich is thought to have been recommended to the Pope with particular enthusiasm by Cardinal Óscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga and above all by Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, archbishop emeritus of Washington.”
However, Cardinal Cupich himself said this week that, while he doesn’t know exactly how his appointment was decided, “I don’t think that I needed one person to be my advocate.”
Such matters will always be relatively mysterious. But Viganò’s claim, in this instance, seems plausible enough.
A provisional conclusion
What, then, does all this add up to? Everyone will draw their own conclusions. My own is that,
while a position of agnosticism can be justified – especially at this early stage – it’s not unreasonable to believe Viganò’s central claims.
A more difficult position, I think, is to dismiss what Viganò is saying. There are two ways to do this.
The first is to say that Viganò is a liar, even a fantasist, on a truly epic scale – a sort of Catholic Mark Hofmann. It’s not enough to argue that Viganò is an ambiguous figure with an axe to grind. He would have to be much more than that: someone capable of defaming the Holy Fatherm, while calling “on God as my witness”, and to do so with such diabolical cunning that the Pope and his closest allies are unable to immediately discredit his claims.
The second possible argument is that we just don’t know enough: that, as in a detective story, some key evidence can turn everything on its head. That if the files of the Vatican and the US nunciature were opened, or if the churchmen accused by Viganò came out to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the picture would change dramatically.
But then the person who is most loudly calling for the files to be examined, and for the protagonists to tell their story, is Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò. [QED!!!]
I do not know what has caused the two earlier pieces on this post to appear the way they now do after I added the third one. Will try to remedy it as soon as I can, which may have to mean re-posting/re-formatting the first two.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 04/09/2018 06:46]