It is time for Archbishop Viganò to meet the press

In this Nov. 16, 2015 file photo, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, Apostolic Nuncio to the U.S., listens to remarks at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' annual fall meeting in Baltimore. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File)In this Nov. 16, 2015 file photo, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, Apostolic Nuncio to the U.S., listens to remarks at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' annual fall meeting in Baltimore. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File)

News that the Holy See is preparing the “necessary clarifications” to the allegations of cover-up and corruption made by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò against Pope Francis and more than 30 past and present senior Vatican officials has been widely welcomed in the church.

As the Vatican prepares its response, many reporters in Rome say Archbishop Viganò also has many questions to answer. Since dropping his bombshell letter, however, he has gone into hiding and acted like an insurgent, making intermittent sniper comments or statements to those journalists and news outlets who share his opposition to Francis. Isn’t it time for him to come out of hiding and meet the press?

Advertisement

Since dropping his bombshell letter, the archbishop has gone into hiding, making intermittent statements to those news outlets who share his opposition to Francis. 

The “clarifications” from the Vatican are necessary to help the Catholic faithful and bishops, especially in the United States, as well as the wider public, to distinguish between the truths, half-truths, falsehoods, imprecisions and insinuations in the letter written by the former papal nuncio to the United States and published simultaneously by what The Washington Post called the “conservative Catholic media.”

The former nuncio has certainly raised some disturbing and important questions. It should be noted, however, that while he denounced “the culture of secrecy,” “a conspiracy of silence,” “the corruption [that] has reached the very top of the church’s hierarchy” and the cover-up of the abuses committed by the former cardinal-archbishop of Washington, Theodore McCarrick, under the previous two popes—John Paul II (1978-2005) and Benedict XVI (2005-13)—Archbishop Viganò kept his most lethal ammunition for Pope Francis.

He ignores the fact that Francis, more than any of his predecessors, has reached out to victims and survivors, meets with them regularly, introduced legislation making it possible to remove bishops for negligence in protecting minors or cover-up of abuse, removed many bishops, sanctioned two cardinals and admitted his mistakes in failing to listen to the victims, as in Chile.

In his letter, Archbishop Viganò downplays the fact that Pope Francis inherited the problem of the abusive cardinal from his two predecessors.

In his letter, Archbishop Viganò downplays the fact that Pope Francis inherited the problem of the abusive cardinal from his two predecessors, and by the time of the pope’s election in March 2013, Archbishop McCarrick was nearly 83 years old. Benedict XVI had accepted his resignation almost seven years earlier and, according to Viganò, had subsequently imposed sanctions on him, which he accused Francis of removing.

It is significant that Viganò gave little or no importance to the fact that it was Pope Francis who imposed severe sanctions on Archbishop McCarrick and removed him from the College of Cardinals at the age of 88, once he received firm evidence that he had abused a minor. Since Francis had already imposed these penal measures on the former cardinal in July, why then did Viganò write his letter a month later?

A senior Vatican official, speaking to America, offered one answer to this question, summarizing what many here think: “If Benedict or Francis had made Viganò a cardinal, he would never have written the letter!”

Apart from that, however, one may ask what was the purpose of this letter? To answer this question, it is necessary to understand that Archbishop Viganò’s letter was but the latest and most lethal—but almost certainly not the last—in a series of increasing attacks over five years by a sector of the more traditionalist wing of the church (including bishops and intellectuals) who claim to align themselves with the teaching of John Paul II and Benedict XVI and strongly dislike Pope Francis’ theology and vision of the church. This sector is closely aligned with persons (many of them Catholics) in the conservative political and economic worlds, particularly in the United States. They have been attacking Francis since the start of his pontificate, using media outlets and reporters friendly to their cause. Indeed, Archbishop Viganò’s letter was crafted with assistance from at least one of those reporters and publicized in a coordinated effort by these news outlets and subsequently by a galaxy of bloggers of a like mind.

These attacks against Francis have become regular and systematic. They spring from this vocal minority’s disagreement with the pope’s leadership of the church.

These attacks against Francis have become regular and systematic, as I have seen during my coverage of the papacy for America. They spring from this vocal minority’s disagreement with the pope’s leadership of the church, his ongoing insistence that mercy is at the heart of the Gospel, his commitment to encounter not confrontation and his appointment of bishops that are pastors not cultural warriors. They come from its dissent from his magisterial teaching in “Laudato Si’” (2015), the encyclical regarding climate change and the protection of creation, and in “Amoris Laetitia” (2016), the exhortation about the family. They are also based on these people’s disagreement with his statements (2013-18) on the economy that kills because it prioritizes profit over people, his statements from 2013 onward on immigration, and his condemnation of the possession of nuclear arms (2017) and of the death penalty (2018).

The attacks began soon after Pope Francis’ election because of his alleged “desacralizing of the papacy” and his “Who am I to judge?” response on the return flight from World Youth Day in Rio de Janeiro in July 2013, when asked about gay priests in the church. The attacks multiplied in connection with the assemblies of the Synod of Bishops on the family (2014-15), with the letter of the 13 cardinals in 2014 and the “dubia” raised by the four cardinals in 2016 regarding his opening the possibility for divorced and remarried persons to receive Communion. Especially since 2014, they have taken the form of almost monthly publication of articles or interviews in the media accusing the pope of departing from traditional church teachings on marriage, the family and homosexuality. The attacks have also come through international conferences in Rome (Archbishop Viganò attended at least one) and highly publicized statements by groups of theologians, bishops and priests accusing him of betraying the church’s magisterium and being guilty of “seven heresies.”

Archbishop Viganò’s letter was the most powerful of these attacks to date because by accusing Pope Francis of covering up the abuse of Archbishop McCarrick and of lifting sanctions imposed by Benedict on him, it sought to undermine his moral authority, destroy his credibility in the eyes of the world and seriously damage the vast public support for him. It cleverly manipulated the sexual abuse question in the interests of their wider agenda outlined above.

It is false to claim that Pope Francis lifted sanctions against Archbishop McCarrick; there is no evidence that there were sanctions as such.

The letter, however, has turned into a boomerang for the minority sector that opposes Francis, because it has thrown the spotlight back on how John Paul II and senior Vatican officials in his pontificate responded to the allegations against Archbishop McCarrick that arrived in 2000 with the letter from the Rev. Boniface Ramsey. It raised the disturbing question as to whether there is a parallel in how the allegations against the Rev. Marcial Maciel, founder of the Legionaries of Christ, and those against Archbishop McCarrick were both mishandled under John Paul.

The letter has also brought the spotlight to bear on how Benedict XVI and his senior officials responded to the allegations in 2006 against Archbishop McCarrick by Father Gregory Littleton, and by Richard Sipe in 2008. It brings to center stage the question of Viganò’s own role then and in the following 10 years. He first called for removing the red hat from Cardinal McCarrick and subjecting him to sanctions prescribed in canon law (2008); he then expressed “dismay” at the slow response under Benedict. In the letter, he affirmed that “what is certain is that Pope Benedict imposed the above canonical sanctions on McCarrick,” perhaps in 2009 or 2010, 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.”

Archbishop Viganò and journalists who sustain his position have been forced to admit that Benedict XVI did not impose canonical sanctions on the errant cardinal-archbishop. At most, Benedict or Vatican officials in his name issued “private” instructions or recommendations to keep a low profile and to leave the seminary (something he did at the end of 2007). It is false, therefore, to claim that Pope Francis lifted sanctions against Archbishop McCarrick; there is no evidence that there were sanctions as such.

The former nuncio claimed that Pope Francis knew about the abuses committed by Archbishop McCarrick because he had informed him of this in a private 40-minute audience on June 23, 2013. But it should be remembered that it was Francis, not Archbishop Viganò, who raised the subject of Archbishop McCarrick. This raises the question: If the matter was of the great importance he subsequently claimed in his letter, why then did the nuncio not introduce the subject first, since he asked for the audience? Indeed, the reason he asked for an audience was something quite different; it related to clarification regarding the kind of candidates for bishops that Francis wanted. Viganò did not ask for the audience to report on McCarrick. Why not?

He wrote in his letter that when the new pope asked, “What is Cardinal McCarrick like?” he responded “Holy Father, 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 and Pope Benedict ordered him to withdraw to a life of prayer and penance.”

Was that all he told the pope about Archbishop McCarrick? Did he go into any depth about these grave matters (note, he did not use the word “abuse”)? How long did he talk with the pope about this? In the following years as nuncio (2013-16), did he submit any dossier or provide Pope Francis with any new or more substantial information about his abuses? Did he ever raise the matter in his various meetings with Francis—for example,during his visit to the United States in 2015, when the pope stayed with him at the nunciature in Washington? If not, why not? And why, if he was so concerned about the then cardinal’s immoral behavior, did he participate in so many public events in the United States with Archbishop McCarrick?

There are many other questions to be answered, but one stands out above all others: Why did Archbishop Viganò wait to go public with his accusatory letter until almost two years into his retirement and one month after Francis had removed Archbishop McCarrick from pastoral ministry and the College of Cardinals?

David Vu
5 days 11 hours ago

The same can be said of this Pope.

William Bannon
5 days 9 hours ago

Exactly...Francis is still hiding from the dubia in silence which silence he just used again as are certain Vatican figures hiding in silence when the press has tried what Francis mandated to them...investigate. The above author needs to “ swerve” as the young say nowadays.

Paul Mclaughlin
3 days 12 hours ago

He doesn’t need to respond to the dubia. If you bother to read Church Law, the Exhortation cannot be the means of communicating new teachings. It can add greater clarity to existing teachings, which it does quite well.

Burke is angry little man. He is still crying about the election of Francis and wants a redo. He has proven to be a terrible administrator. And let’s see what The SL files say now that Carlson has agreed to release them, including those from Burke’s tenure.

Jorge Luis Luaces Rabaza
5 days 6 hours ago

Hail Mary, Full of Grace, protect America Media from trolls. Amen.

Elaine Boyle
5 days 3 hours ago

LOL!!! Francis is afraid of the Dubia and afraid of Vigano. So Francis chooses omertà. Francis won’t set foot in his home country of Argentina because he’s unwelcome by the people who know him best. Francis was unattended in Ireland and in Chile they know he’s pro-gay and tired of the abuse there.

John Rysavy
4 days 18 hours ago

Don’t know how that is helping the discussion with name calling. Sunlight is necessary for all parties!

Frank T
5 days 11 hours ago

Might it be that Vigano is using the McCarrick Affair to discredit the pope for spearheading change
in the Church? He certainly seems to be in league with those who don't want change of any kind.
This speaks to some sort of power play, I think.

Mark Langlois
5 days 9 hours ago

Seems very probable. Consciences are very subjugated to one’s foundational wounds.

Mark Langlois
5 days 9 hours ago

Seems very probable. Consciences are very subjugated to one’s foundational wounds.

Elaine Boyle
5 days 6 hours ago

What are you guys saying? Homo-poetic gobbledygook nonsense verbage. Just like all the 30,000 word bricks of nonsense like Amoris Laetitia or Laudato Si. Seventies boomers have their own language but it’s not Catholic.

“Consciences are very subjugated to one’s foundational wounds.”. LOL!!!!!!!!

lynne miller
5 days ago

That's what it sounds like to me, Frank! Instead of thinking of what Jesus taught, that group thinks of what will benefit itself, possibly a ploy to become a cardinal.

Trent Shannon
4 days 21 hours ago

Francis started a reform agenda, and its due to report this year. Vigano and the cabal of isolationist Pharisites are just playing the outrage for mileage to further their agenda, over the lives and bodies of church abuse survivors, to pursue the bogeyman who is mentioned in a total of 4 bible passages and 3 catechisms, because apparently being born that way is an egregious sin (but child abuse and cover ups are nothing of the sort)

Thinking of Vigano I picture a snivelling little man. Maybe that's his aura. Only he's exhausted ammunition. And I get the feeling something to hide other than pride

Elaine Boyle
4 days 20 hours ago

“Reform” Jesus Christ? Please. The francis god of surprises is Satan. Catholics across the globe are united against the pride of Francis, who thinks he knows more than Jesus Himself.

A Fielder
4 days 19 hours ago

According to Vigano's own testimony, the curia has been running the show for decades. Now Francis wants to reform the curia, but the curia does not want to be reformed. Clear as day.

Douglas Coombs
7 hours 11 min ago

It is Francis who ended the reform of the Vatican Bank. Vigano found 50 million dollars in one year, taking the Vatican Bank from a 10 million deficit to a 40 million surplus by cleaning things up. Francis talks about change, but his has been one of the most financially and morally corrupt papacies in several hundred years. Francis ended the audit of the Vatican Bank by outside consultants. Pope Francis' eyes and ears at the Vatican Bank is a man who lived openly with his boyfriend in Uruguay and was caught in a broken down elevator with a teenage rent-boy. Of course, the age of consent is 15 in Uruguay, so the Pope dismissed the child sexual abuse as between consenting adults (one of whom was being paid). It smacks of the Wuerl's pay-off of Fr. Zirwas who moved to Cuba where the prostitutes were cheaper with the money he got from the Pittsburgh diocese and was found by his boyfriend having been murdered by one of his gay prostitutes. Cardinal Wuerl reinstated the child molestor Zirwas as a full priest and spoke glowingly of him at his funeral, which was attended by more than one bishop.

Yet, still Francis hasn't accepted his two year old resignation letter.

What a reformer Pope Francis is!!!!

Frank T
5 days 11 hours ago

I also wonder if American conservatives are putting undue pressure on American Bishops. Money is always needed and even Bishops can be flattered by attention.

Mark Langlois
5 days 9 hours ago

Seems very probable in an institutional church which has turned in on itself.

Trent Shannon
4 days 21 hours ago

Buying bishops (even popes) to get your agenda met was all the rage in the medieval era. How things have changed and stayed the same...

Colin Donovan
5 days 11 hours ago

While some so-called "conservatives" no doubt would like to see the Pope resign, most "Catholics" of all views simply want the truth to come out up and down the hierarchical ladder, with the consequence that future generations will not have to endure what past generations of children, parents, seminarians, clergy and parishioners have had to endure from moral and governance corruption in the Church. If that means that Francis is known to the future as the Pope who reformed the Church on these questions that would be the best outcome, and better than finding the allegations true. For either, the truth must be known, and THAT is what most Catholics want.

john schmidt
5 days 10 hours ago

It isn't the ordinary Catholics or the Pope that wants to cover this up. It is the conservatives who don't want the reforms he is trying. It sounds like he should have fired a bunch at the beginning.

Elaine Boyle
5 days 6 hours ago

Francis wants to “reform” Jesus’ teaching? Sorry but the god of surprises is not Jesus Christ who is God.

Francis cannot make up his own teaching, he’s not Jesus. His god of surprises has no authority whatsoever.

Trent Shannon
4 days 21 hours ago

Francis is not making up his own teachings! For crying out loud, since when was mercy a brand new teaching in the bible?

Israelites in trouble in Egypt? God had mercy on them. Stuck in the desert without food? God had mercy.

Mary Magdeline and a whole bunch of others corrupted by demons? Christ had mercy. Man deaf and dumb? Christ had mercy. Cured them all - free of charge

Live a troubled, hellish life? God will have mercy on you come the end. Give away possessions to the poor? God will have mercy on you.

The whole book and the whole religion is about mercy, leading good, humble lives, and rejecting sins (separations) from God and each other.

Not sure why you fear that agenda and application of mercy. Do you want the church being a vanity club where only certain people are allowed, but not others based on an inclination towards an act - without carrying out said act - that appears in the Bible 4 times and is mentioned in 3 chatechidms (out of nearly 4000)

Because thats insular pride - and pride leads to a very bad place

Elaine Boyle
4 days 20 hours ago

Francis has “reformed” Jesus Christ’s direct teaching on divorce. Francis is anti-Natural Law because he coddles and promotes mortal sin! Sodomy. Francis, is against Divine Law (God’s holy scripture) when he promotes Indifferentism and promoted heresy (Protestantism). Do I need to keep going? Francis is a god in his own mind. He can’t change God’s teaching. Sorry.

A Fielder
4 days 19 hours ago

Elaine, please tell me where in Sacred Scripture Jesus said the divorced people who remarry cannot receive the Eucharist. Likewise, why does a Christian need to be in union with Peter in order to receive the Eucharist. Where in the bible is that written?

Joseph O'Leary
1 day 1 hour ago

"direct teaching on divorce" -- not so simple, of course. Jesus forbids divorce in Mark (which may reflect his actual words uttered more than 30 years previously) but Matthew twice adds the modifying clause me epi porneias, whose meaning is unclear but which certainly modifies the prohibition. THen the Church has used the Pauline and Petrine privileges to dissolve marriages not between baptized Roman Catholics. Then in addition there is the lenient regime of marriage annulments for such reasons as "lack of due discretion". And why? Because the Church is merciful.

lynne miller
5 days ago

You've hit the nail on the head, John.

Mark Langlois
5 days 9 hours ago

I agree wholeheartedly!

Patty Bennett
5 days 5 hours ago

You're absolutely right!

Dog Tired
3 days 18 hours ago

I am what you would probably consider as a “conservative” Catholic, and I agree with you. I think all of us need to contemplate the scale and duration of this plague of corruption. Yes, it was very much in place during the “good old days”. Yes, both John Paul and Benedict did not do enough to even begin to adddress it. Yes, many “conservative” bishops knew about it and contributed to the culture of secrecy. But it is time to drop the politics and realize that our hierarchy have enabled the destruction of many lives.
I support the investigations that state attorney generals are undertaking. I would also support removing any statue of limitations concerning the sexual abuse of minors or enabling it. We need to see bishops in prison.
I would also like bishops to explicitly pronounce that priests or seminarians exposing corruption or the persecution of faithful priests are NOT in violation of any vows of obedience.

In my opinion, this tragedy is still a “crisis management” exercise for all involved. There is very little recognition of the damage done to the Church, the victims (both minors and adults), and faithful priests. Perhaps that is the most astounding thing to me. Despite the evidence, the lives ruined, the state of the Church today, so many (including America) are still treating this like your typical PR firm. There seems to be no recognition of what’s happened; no real repentance. Can we even begin to imagine how this is breaking Jesus’s heart?

Joseph O'Leary
1 day 1 hour ago

Did you notice, Dog Tired, that the Philadelphia Grand Jury report found only 2 cases of abuse since 2002. I'd say it's quite probable that clerical abuse of minors is now at an all-time low. Maybe we need to think of other kinds of abuse -- say of the thousands of teenagers in solitary confinement while they wait for their parents to serve out their prison sentences. That is cruel and unusual punishment, forbidden by the US Constitution.

Terry Magyar
5 days 11 hours ago

The Pope needs to meet the press. Pope Francis is the one being silent. It's Satan that has successfully tempted the Princes of the Church to cover up crimes of sexual abuse. Rome can easily hire profession investigators from the FBI or Scotland Yard. This McCarrick Affair must be investigated !

john schmidt
5 days 10 hours ago

There is no evidence of any coverup by this Pope. An accusation by a disgruntled employee who was passed over for the Red Hat was made even though he is a conservative trying to derail the reforms of the Church. However, anyone with a problem with the Pope is pushing this line.

Mark Langlois
5 days 9 hours ago

I agree!

Elaine Boyle
5 days 6 hours ago

John, so Vigano who never was a pervert was passed over, but a gay rapist predator was elevated higher? Think about what side you are on! It makes no sense, Vigano > McCarrick by ANY definition known to sane humanity.

James Hickman
5 days 10 hours ago

“There’s a point where you have to put your faith on the line,” Father Haley said. “You have to put your life at risk. I am willing to die for this. I am willing to stand up for the truth. Someday, this will all come out. The abuse scandal will seem small compared to this.”

Worth a trip down memory lane...see whether this article linked in my comment matches reality. It's from Nov 15, 2004 -- nearly 14 years ago. Warnings and revelations back then align very well with the Testimony of Archbishop Viganò. As the author here claims that Archbishop Viganò is an insurgent two days after the seventeenth anniversary of 9/11 (consider the ways real insurgents have faught against Americans in war) and in the midst of the #MeToo movement, I am saddened that this appears in a magazine named America. We keep hearing a defense of Pope Francis that once the Holy Father knew of the credible reports of abusing a minor, His Holiness removed Archbishop McCarrick from the College of Cardinals. But we assume that His Holiness, since it is not denied even by the Pope, knew that McCarrick was sexually abusing those under his authority, including priests and seminarians. That a media organization in today's culture would attack the whistle blower who is attempting to reveal cover-up culture in a world filled with it shows the true colors of this author and organization. Whether LifeSiteNews has a right-leaning take on theology does not matter if it is true that many in the Church's hierarchy knew of McCarrick's sexual abuse of young adults for decades. Even the left-leaning secular news, including CNN, seems to accept this version of the Testimony. Or there is CBS, which is perhaps more middle of the road, yet still secular press. This is hardly a conservative Catholic conspiracy -- or a new one at that.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/nov/15/20041115-124042-2061r/

CNN: Difficult to find now, but you can search and find that Father Boniface Ramsey was the priest at Chris Cuomo's wedding.

CBS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8MRimOkagY

Jim Spangler
5 days 6 hours ago

James, here's another James that tends to agree with you. We are starting to see the walls built up against Bishop Vigano and his testimony. Its typical institutional management from the top to the lower levels of the same. It's just that in public institutions information is easier obtained by those reporting on it. With the secrecy mode that the Roman Catholic Church, and probably the Eastern and Orthodox rites have mastered, the truth will not be weeded out as easy. I for one plan to keep the pressure on the hierarchy from Bishops on up to the Pope until something comes to light. We know that there has developed a environment of power, money and secrecy. Until this environment is penetrated the truth will not come out. I still believe Christ's statement "that the truth will set you free" still holds. If the hierarchy was aware, (which I'm sure they were) they would have thrown McCarrick, Woehl, Tobin, and several others under the bus a long time ago. How can WE (all of us) turn this sickness into a political tit pull, when thousands, and thousands have been abused, wounded, and suffered from and by the Church hierarchy! The Church has always been known to destroy lives, be it through the sword, burning at the stake, or just out right persecution and destruction in order to protect what they think is what the correct mode of worshipping of Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! Nobody has that right. The Universe of God is much larger than the Roman Catholic Church. These people will have to answer to God someday, I pray that I can be there for judgement. Until I hear some truth, they are all guilty, and I will not be quiet! A voice cries out from the wilderness, make way for the LORD! Amen, John the Baptist, come and chase out this pit of snakes and vipers!

Ron Chandonia
5 days 10 hours ago

Yet another scurrilous personal attack on a whistleblower who made some very specific charges . . . and no response at all to the allegations in his testimony. If this is the best "liberal Catholic media" can do, it's hardly surprising people turn for the truth to your conservative counterparts.

Stephanie Hampton
5 days 10 hours ago

Amen!
Vigano has shown gross disrespect for the Pope but also for the Church, timing his "testimony" to coincide with the end of the Family Meeting in Ireland.
Before Vigano's letter, it was only Vatican insiders such as yourself who knew of this anti-Francis. Now they have played their hand.
I have confidence in our Holy Father. Christ called St. Francis to "rebuild my Church"; I think it no coincidence that Bergoglio chose the name.

Although this is a very painful period, I believe that our Church will come out of it a stronger, leaner organization and perhaps even put more of fifty-year-old Vatican II reforms into effect.

Mark Langlois
5 days 9 hours ago

I fully agree

Stock Market Guru
5 days 8 hours ago

What reforms would those be, Stephanie ? The ones that have decimated the Catholic Church the last 50+ years ? The ones that have taken Mass attendance from 75% to 15% ? The ones that have allowed pedophiles and sexual deviants to infilrate the clergy, our schools, our institutions ?

How many more "reforms" do you want ? You want the Catholic Church to be a much larger Episcopalian Church that stands for nothing and everything ?

Uggg.....feminists and theology...what a combination.

Elaine Boyle
5 days 6 hours ago

Preposterous. Francis didn’t lift a finger to help the Ireland abortion vote, Francis is a fraud. The testimony was perfect to catch the loudmouth on his obnoxious plane conferences! And Francis chose omertà instead of blathering on like he’s used to! Brilliant by Vigano the Catholic hero!

Frank T
5 days 5 hours ago

Vigano is hardly a Catholic hero, or any kind of hero, for that matter. Attacking the Pope and then going into hiding? We know that the Curial system is tainted toward corruption. Francis has to operate within it in order to change it, I'll put my money on His Holiness. Vigano is first and foremost a schemer and this was part of a scheme that is about to backfire.

Elaine Boyle
5 days 3 hours ago

Vigano doesn’t want to be the next Seth Rich. Vigano knows what diabolical perverts he’s confronting. These pervs are ruthless, look what they do to children!!! The gay priests traffick in child porn and worse!

lynne miller
5 days ago

Wow, Elaine! You really have it in for gays, don't you?

Elaine Boyle
4 days 20 hours ago

Gay priests. They live a diabolical lie. Too many busted with child porn and illegal unchaste gay pederast sex crimes.

gerald nichols
4 days 21 hours ago

Former Catholic observer here; and I agree with Elaine Boyle that the whole thing is the homosexuals wanting to take over the RCC completely. This Pope is on their side.

Nilda Latorre
1 day 13 hours ago

Vigano formed an alliance with a corrupted church,Therefore He is part of it whether He likes or not.
If Pope wished He could destroy the Whole Curia and drag them along to nothiness. He is the one with the finger on the button .But this is not his style.
There is one thing you can do to solve the catholic church problem follow the money.Open the file of Maciel John Paul ,Benedict and mac carrick Foundations .

Stephanie Hampton
5 days 3 hours ago

Schemers often overplay their hands, believing their own propaganda. I am hoping that this unmasking will facilitate the changes that His Holiness needs to make.
Vigano's going into hiding "for his own safety" was also directly insulting because he implied that his life was in danger. Drama queen!

lynne miller
5 days ago

Agreed - the timing of that letter was very suspicious!

Advertisement

The latest from america

A Vatican source confirmed that a high-level Holy See delegation will travel to the Chinese capital for the signing and that a date has already been fixed for this ground-breaking event.
Gerard O’ConnellSeptember 18, 2018
Swiss Guards salute as Cardinals Timothy M. Dolan of New York and Daniel N. DiNardo of Galveston-Houston leave a meeting of cardinals with Pope Francis in the synod hall at the Vatican Feb. 21, 2014. (CNS photo/Paul Haring) 
“The church has lost credibility in investigating itself.”
Jim McDermottSeptember 18, 2018
This economy is not working for human beings.
Brandon SanchezSeptember 18, 2018
Pope Francis leads a meeting with young people in Palermo, Sicily, Sept. 15. (CNS photo/Paul Haring)
Even after revelations about sexual abuse in the church, 79 percent of U.S. Catholics—but only 53 percent of all Americans—hold a favorable view of Pope Francis, according to a Gallup poll.
Michael J. O’LoughlinSeptember 18, 2018