Loading...
Loading...
Click here if you don’t see subscription options
Gerard O’ConnellOctober 19, 2018
 Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, then nuncio to the United States, and then-Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, are seen in a combination photo during the beatification Mass of Blessed Miriam Teresa Demjanovich at the Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart in Newark, N.J., Oct. 4, 2014. (CNS photo/Gregory A. Shemitz)  Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, then nuncio to the United States, and then-Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, are seen in a combination photo during the beatification Mass of Blessed Miriam Teresa Demjanovich at the Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart in Newark, N.J., Oct. 4, 2014. (CNS photo/Gregory A. Shemitz)

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the former papal nuncio to the United States, has written a third letter from his undisclosed hideout, reaffirming charges of “a conspiracy of silence” and “corruption” at the highest levels in the church in the pontificates of John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis in a cover-up of “the aberrant behavior” of the former cardinal Theodore McCarrick.

His new letter attempts to respond to his critics and to reassert his original accusations but does not include any new evidence to support the claims he made in his first “testimony” of Aug. 25.

In this third letter Archbishop Viganò no longer insists, as he did so forcefully in his first letter, that the restrictions that he claimed Benedict XVI had imposed on Archbishop McCarrick—one he alleges that Pope Francis later lifted—can be understood as “sanctions.”

“They were not technically ‘sanctions’ but provisions, ‘conditions and restrictions’ but,” he argues, “to quibble whether they were sanctions or provisions or something else is pure legalism. From a pastoral point of view, they are exactly the same thing.”

“They were not technically ‘sanctions’ but provisions, ‘conditions and restrictions’ but,” he argues, “to quibble whether they were sanctions or provisions or something else is pure legalism.”

Archbishop Viganò repeats the accusation that there is a “conspiracy of silence that has wrought and continues to wreak great harm in the Church.” He attempts to prove this by providing a timeline for the allegations made to the Holy See, starting in 2000 and ending in 2008, about Archbishop McCarrick’s “homosexual behavior.”

He writes: “In 2009 or 2010 I learned from Cardinal Re, prefect of the Congregation of Bishops, that Pope Benedict had ordered Archbishop McCarrick to cease public ministry and begin a life of prayer and penance.” He said Cardinal Ouellet, then the new Prefect of Bishops, told him the same in November 2011 before he went as nuncio to the United States and that the previous nuncio, Archbishop Pietro Sambi, and he communicated these restrictions to Archbishop McCarrick “face to face.”

At one point, the former nuncio flatly refutes Cardinal Ouellet. The cardinal had written in his response to Archbishop Viganò that “the Holy See was only aware of ‘rumors,’ which were not enough to justify disciplinary measures against McCarrick.”

Archbishop Viganò writes, “I affirm to the contrary that the Holy See was aware of a variety of concrete facts, and is in possession of documentary proof, and that the responsible persons nevertheless chose not to intervene or were prevented from doing so.”

“I pray every day for Pope Francis. I am asking, indeed earnestly begging, the Holy Father to face up to the commitments he himself made in assuming his office as successor of Peter.” 

Among those he mentions “compensation by the Archdiocese of Newark and the Diocese of Metuchen to the victims of McCarrick’s sexual abuse, the letters of [Father Boniface] Ramsey, of the nuncios Montalvo in 2000 and Sambi in 2006, of Dr. [Richard] Sipe in 2008, my two notes to the superiors of the Secretariat of State who described in detail the concrete allegations against McCarrick.”

“Are all these just rumors?” he asks. “They are official correspondence, not gossip from the sacristy. The crimes reported were very serious, including those of attempting to give sacramental absolution to accomplices in perverse acts, with subsequent sacrilegious celebration of Mass. These documents specify the identity of the perpetrators and their protectors, and the chronological sequence of the facts. They are kept in the appropriate archives; no extraordinary investigation is needed to recover them.”

Archbishop Viganò does not comment on an investigation of those archives ordered by the pope, according to a Vatican statement released on Oct. 6. It is also noteworthy that Archbishop Viganò no longer calls for the resignation of Pope Francis. He does not explain if his opinion has changed on that matter.

If there is something new in this third letter, it is Archbishop Viganò’s even stronger emphasis that homosexuality is the root cause of the sexual abuse scandal in the church, not clericalism. “This is a crisis due to the scourge of homosexuality,” he writes, “in its agents, in its motives, in its resistance to reform. It is no exaggeration to say that homosexuality has become a plague in the clergy, and it can only be eradicated with spiritual weapons.”

Archbishop Viganò declares, “It is an enormous hypocrisy: Condemn the abuse, claim to weep for the victims, and yet refuse to denounce the root cause of so much sexual abuse: homosexuality. It is hypocrisy to refuse to acknowledge that this scourge is due to a serious crisis in the spiritual life of the clergy and to fail to take the steps necessary to remedy it.”

“It is well established that homosexual predators exploit clerical privilege to their advantage. But to claim the crisis itself to be clericalism is pure sophistry.”

He acknowledges that there are “philandering clergy” in the church that corrupt souls and do harm, but he says, “These violations of priestly celibacy are usually confined to the individuals immediately involved. Philandering clergy usually do not recruit other philanderers, nor work to promote them, nor cover-up their misdeeds—whereas the evidence for homosexual collusion, with its deep roots that are so difficult to eradicate, is overwhelming.”

Indeed, “it is well established that homosexual predators exploit clerical privilege to their advantage. But to claim the crisis itself to be clericalism is pure sophistry. It is to pretend that a means, an instrument, is in fact the main motive.”

The former nuncio charges without evidence that Archbishop McCarrick “was part of a network of bishops promoting homosexuality who exploiting their favor with Pope Francis manipulated episcopal appointments so as to protect themselves from justice and to strengthen the homosexual network in the hierarchy and in the Church at large.” He charges that “Pope Francis himself has either colluded in this corruption, or, knowing what he does, is gravely negligent in failing to oppose it and uproot it.”

Archbishop Viganò states that “denouncing homosexual corruption and the moral cowardice that allows it to flourish does not meet with congratulation in our times, not even in the highest spheres of the Church.” He adds, “I am not surprised that in calling attention to these plagues I am charged with disloyalty to the Holy Father and with fomenting an open and scandalous rebellion. Yet rebellion would entail urging others to topple the papacy. I am urging no such thing.”

Cardinal Ouellet in his letter had called on Archbishop Viganò to stop his “rebellion,” to repent and be converted. In today’s letter, Archbishop Viganò instead calls for Pope Francis to repent and be converted.

He writes: “I pray every day for Pope Francis—more than I have ever done for the other popes. I am asking, indeed earnestly begging, the Holy Father to face up to the commitments he himself made in assuming his office as successor of Peter. He took upon himself the mission of confirming his brothers and guiding all souls in following Christ, in the spiritual combat, along the way of the cross. Let him admit his errors, repent, show his willingness to follow the mandate given to Peter and, once converted let him confirm his brothers (Lk 22:32).”

The Italian journalist Marco Tosatti, who helped Archbishop Viganò write his first letter, released this new letter on his blog on Oct. 19 in Italian and English.

In it, Archbishop Viganò leaves no doubt that he was fully aware that his decision “to bear witness to corruption in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church” would bring “alarm and dismay” to his many former colleagues in the Vatican and in the church and that “many of the innocent faithful would be confused and disconcerted by the spectacle of a bishop’s charging colleagues and superiors with malfeasance, sexual sin, and grave neglect of duty.”

He says he decided to go public with his denunciation because he believed “my continued silence would put many souls at risk and would certainly damn my own.” Many have asked why he waited until two years after his retirement to speak out publicly about “the aberrant behavior of Theodore McCarrick” which he had known for almost two decades. Archbishop Viganò attributes the delay to “the gravity of the decision” and adds, “if I have some responsibility in this delay, I repent for that.”

Many have accused Archbishop Viganò of “creating confusion and division in the church” through his testimony. But his response to this in today’s letter reveals yet again that the abuse question is not his main concern because he blames Francis for “being negligent in exercising his principal mission, which is to confirm the brothers in the faith and in sound moral doctrine” by “contradictory or perplexing statements about these doctrines.”

Surprisingly, Archbishop Viganò concludes his letter by appealing yet again “to my brother bishops and priests who know that my statements are true and who can so testify, or who have access to documents that can put the matter beyond doubt.”

He tells them: “You too are faced with a choice. You can choose to withdraw from the battle, to prop up the conspiracy of silence and avert your eyes from the spreading of corruption. You can make excuses, compromises and justification that put off the day of reckoning. You can console yourselves with the falsehood and the delusion that it will be easier to tell the truth tomorrow, and then the following day, and so on.”

It remains to be seen if any will respond to his plea.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
Michael Barberi
3 years 7 months ago

What is the most alarming to me, and by that I don't mean to minimize the other accusations by VIgano, is this:

> Vigano says that documented evidence exists that in the year 2,000 many Cardinals and Bishops of the U.S. and the Apostolic Nucio to the U.S. (by Fr. Ramsey's letter or emails) knew of Bishop McCarrick's decades-long sexual abuse of seminarians. Yet, Pope JP II promoted him to Cardinal in 2001.

The questions are:

1. Did these Cardinals, Bishops and the Apostolic Nucio withhold the evidence about McCarrick's sexual abuse from JP II when they obviously knew JP II was considering promoting him to Cardinal?

2. If people in the highest levels of our Church withheld such information from JP II, then is this not a bigger scandal?

3. If JP II knew about the evidence and accusations against McCarrick before he promoted him to Cardinal, then was he not gross negligent in his responsibilities as pope?

4. If JP II knew of these accusations and evidence against McCormick, then at the very least should he not have called for a thorough investigation, and if the accusations were found to be true should he not have promoted him to Cardinal?

I seriously hope that the Church will thoroughly investigate Vigano's allegation that the hierarchy (Bishops, Cardinals, Apostolic Nuncio) knew about McCarrick's decades-long sexual abuse in 2,000 and either withheld information from JP II or told him about it. Nevertheless, I have serious doubts that the truth will be made transparent and public. After all, what will this say about the Church when we know that JP II was made a Saint of the Church?

A Fielder
3 years 6 months ago

I’m getting tired of Viganò. Does he really expect Francis to throw Benedict under the bus for a very weak slap on the wrist followed by virtually no effort to enforce the sanctions/provisions? Church leaders have been disregarding bishops’ indiscretions and mistresses for decades. Now that Viganò is retired, he thinks Francis will shoulder all the blame. How ridiculous!

Theodore Seeber
3 years 6 months ago

You do not understand the accusation. Benedict's slap on the wrist may have been weak, but it did exist. McCarrick had been retired, and sentenced to a life of penance and prayer, out of the limelight (some would suggest, given where he was put to live, still with opportunities to abuse, but that had NOTHING to do with the now credible accusations against him).

In comparison, Pope Francis sent him to China, to live in a seminary and rape seminarians, while negotiating the current agreement with the Chinese government.

I'll take a weak slap on the wrist to actively supporting abuse any day.

Rob Lopez
3 years 6 months ago

I always wonder why Vigano never felt it was important enough to go to law enforcement when it first happened.

Vincent Couling
3 years 6 months ago

Perhaps he was hoping for an appointment to the cardinalate, and so didn't want to rock the boat (especially under the pontificates of JPII and BXVI) ... when he eventually realized that wasn't going to happen, perhaps he became bitter and sought revenge against Pope Francis. Inevitably, the law of unintended consequences will have its way with malevolent schemers ... in their attempt to besmirch Pope Francis' legacy, the Vigano cabal seem to have undermined the Petrine office itself ... what is particularly ironic is that it is the so-called traditionalists who have wrought such incalculable damage on the very tradition they have idolized.

Gregory Graham
3 years 6 months ago

As I said in another comment, homosexual acts against adults are sinful, but not strictly criminal under U.S. law. Whether or not Vigano is bitter about his career, he presents very specific charges and claims that there is very clear evidence in Church records that you and I don't have access to, but those he is accusing do. Instead of producing documentation to refute Vigano's allegations, his opponents attack his motivation, question his loyalty, and come up with conspiracy theories. This is not a credible defense, but looks an awful lot like evasion, which is the tactic of the guilty.

Gregory Graham
3 years 6 months ago

Whether or not Vigano is bitter about his career, he presents very specific charges and claims that there is very clear evidence in Church records that you and I don't have access to, but those he is accusing do. Instead of producing documentation to refute Vigano's allegations, his opponents attack his motivation, question his loyalty, and come up with conspiracy theories. This is not a credible defense, but looks an awful lot like evasion, which is the tactic of the guilty.

F C
3 years 6 months ago

Try as one might Gregory, one cannot prove unicorns don't exist.

Gregory Graham
3 years 6 months ago

Homosexual acts are sinful, but not strictly illegal. Even if there were still sodomy laws on the books at the time, they were not being enforced. There is now evidence that at least one of McCarrick's victims was under-age, but I don't think Vigano knew that. I am not a lawyer, but I think the seminarian victims could have sued for sexual harassment, but I think that is a civil issue, not criminal.

JOHN GRONDELSKI
3 years 6 months ago

Was it his role as a diplomat to do that? His role was to inform his superior, and he did.

Frank T
3 years 6 months ago

The Church has been guilty of scapegoating minorities in its' past.
Let us not go down that ugly path.
I am guessing that some Saints have been declared far too early as well.
Let us not repeat our recent mistakes. Let's learn from history.

Vincent Couling
3 years 6 months ago

Vigano and his co-conspirators initially tried to force Pope Francis to resign, blindsiding him with an unprecedented attack which was carefully orchestrated and timed to maximize its damaging impact ... Pope Francis was shortly to board the plane from Ireland, these trips home always including a press conference, thereby ensuring Francis would have to answer questions from the press while on the back foot, exhausted from the gruelling World Meeting of Families. Cardinal Ouellet appears to have hit the nail on the head in describing Vigano's attack on Pope Francis as a "political frame job"!

In their initial broadside, Vigano and his co-conspirators made the patently false claim that BXVI had corroborated (via a mole) that he had imposed formal sanctions upon McCarrick, sanctions which they falsely claimed Pope Francis had subsequently lifted. It was on the basis of this calumny that Vigano called on the Pope to resign. This appears to have been the primary objective of the Vigano cabal ... to force Francis to resign (as BXVI had) while there still remains a critical mass of ultra-conservatives in the College of Cardinals, thereby maximizing the chance that his replacement might be a man like Burke rather than Bergoglio. The longer the Francis pontificate continues, the more dramatic the change to the body of men who will meet in the next conclave ... with each added year of the present pontificate, so their window of opportunity continues to close ... soon to be closed shut for good.

Vigano's lies have been consistently interspersed with a vile homophobic rant, seeking to establish homosexuality as the scapegoat for a multitude of ecclesiastical ills. How dare Pope Francis suggest that clericalism is the underlying cause of the clerical abuse crisis when the conservatives want to proffer the scapegoat of homosexuality in the priesthood as the principal cause of this crisis!

My prayer is for Pope Francis to be granted at least another 5 years as the vicar of Christ, so that he can effect lasting change on the church, which he says has been afflicted by the "perversion" of clericalism: in Francis' words, "what needs to be done today is to accompany the church in a deep spiritual renewal ... just 50 years ago, the Second Vatican Council clearly said the church is the people of God ... I know that the Lord wants the council to make headway in the church ... it takes 100 years for a council to be applied. We are halfway there, so, if you want to help me, do whatever it takes to move the council forward in the church. And help me with your prayer. I need so many prayers."

James M.
3 years 6 months ago

“They were not technically ‘sanctions’ but provisions, ‘conditions and restrictions’ but,” he argues, “to quibble whether they were sanctions or provisions or something else is pure legalism. From a pastoral point of view, they are exactly the same thing.”

The distinction is important, at least for the purposes of canon law. Denying the distinction matters allows Vigano to attack Pope Francis, without having to bother about whether his accusations are strictly true. Canon law is important, and so are its distinctions, even if he does not think so.

It is atrocious that he is making a public issue of this. Causing scandal is a sin, not a virtue. That being so, the only excuse one can have for commenting on this evil, is that it is already public knowledge, so one is not making it any more public than it is.

“At one point, the former nuncio flatly refutes Cardinal Ouellet. The cardinal had written in his response to Archbishop Viganò that “the Holy See was only aware of ‘rumors,’ which were not enough to justify disciplinary measures against McCarrick.”

Archbishop Viganò writes, “I affirm to the contrary that the Holy See was aware of a variety of concrete facts, and is in possession of documentary proof, and that the responsible persons nevertheless chose not to intervene or were prevented from doing so.””

Vigano has denied what Cardinal Ouellet says, but has “refute[d]” nothing. Refutation =///= denial. A refutation is a demonstration - not a bare assertion - that a statement is ill-founded. Merely to deny what Card. Ouellet says, falls far short of refuting it. Vigano can “affirm to the contrary” until he is blue in the face, but mere affirmation, without solid evidence that the affirmation is well-founded, is of no force whatever. Vigano cannot say anything whatever, and expect it to be believed, for no better reason than that “This is the word of Abp Vigano”.

His affirmations are worthless and mischievous, and come very close to slander, unless he can show, not indeed that they are true, but, at the very least, that they are well-founded. It is not a trivial matter to speak evil of the Pope, or to break a promise; both of which Abp Vigano has done.

“He acknowledges that there are “philandering clergy” in the church that corrupt souls and do harm, but he says, “These violations of priestly celibacy are usually confined to the individuals immediately involved. Philandering clergy usually do not recruit other philanderers, nor work to promote them, nor cover-up their misdeeds—whereas the evidence for homosexual collusion, with its deep roots that are so difficult to eradicate, is overwhelming.””

And that makes clerical unchastity of non-SSA clerics no big deal, because...? He is thinking like a politician, not like a man of God. And that is as distressing as any other clerical failing. Corruption of souls by the clergy is damnable, regardless of how the cleric does it.

Vincent Couling
3 years 6 months ago

James M., your insights are, as ever, profoundly illuminating. Yours are the posts I especially keep an eye out for. You have your finger on the pulse!

Vincent Gaglione
3 years 6 months ago

I am having a very hard time deciding WHETHER the failure of bishops to take immediate and forceful actions in their dioceses after the clerical abuse scandals were uncovered and publicized OR Vigano’s three letters are the most significant source of scandal to the Faithful in the Catholic Church. The profound damages incurred among the Faithful by both are frightening in their enormity.

Daku Mundi
3 years 6 months ago

Michael i definitely agree with you.
Regards,
Appflix

Michael Barberi
3 years 6 months ago

Here is another question that is unanswered.

Who are the investigators?

> Everyone has called for an independent lay-lead investigative committee with full access to all records including Vatican emails, etc. DiNardo was supposed to get Pope Francis's agreement on the investigative plan he proposed. YET, WE HAVE HEARD NOTHING.

Daku Mundi
3 years 6 months ago

And you think that's got some shady reason behind it?

Regards,
CotoMovies

Michael Barberi
3 years 6 months ago

Baku Mundi - The bishops cannot investigate the bishops...pure and simple. It is like asking the fox to guard the hen house because many hens have been killed and expect the fox to report the truth that he or another fox killed the hens. Could the bishops report the full truth.....probably not. Consider how many sexual crimes were covered up and not reported and how many times the bishops refused to fully cooperate with law enforcement and legal authorities.

Keep in mind that it was the bishops themselves by their immoral actions and inactions that caused them to lose their credibility. I have consistently called for a lay-lead independent investigative committee. If this committee is made up of all bishops and clergy, or with bishops and only a few token lay people, the findings will be met with skepticism.

James B
3 years 6 months ago

The pontificate of Francis is compromised in many ways now, but this is one of the most scandalous.

F C
3 years 6 months ago

James - it is indeed a scandal that someone as senior as an archbishop attacks the Pope (and slanders a healthy chunk of the clergy to boot) with nothing more than hearsay and innuendo.

Christopher Scott
3 years 6 months ago

This is just a bunch of double talk nonsense. Is Vigano telling the truth, yes or no? Of course it’s yes, at no point do you refute his spacific allegations, you just talk in circles while Pope Francis sits silent hiding behind non credible spokesman

It’s game over for the pink palaces in the Church. Catholics will not get the truth from the clergy, we’ll get the help from outside the Church, it will come from the US federal government investigations spreading nationwide. You might as well come clean because it’s all going to get exposed anyway!

Christopher Scott
3 years 6 months ago

This is just a bunch of double talk nonsense. Is Vigano telling the truth, yes or no? Of course it’s yes, at no point do you refute his spacific allegations, you just talk in circles while Pope Francis sits silent hiding behind non credible spokesman

It’s game over for the pink palaces in the Church. Catholics will not get the truth from the clergy, we’ll get the help from outside the Church, it will come from the US federal government investigations spreading nationwide. You might as well come clean because it’s all going to get exposed anyway!

justinreany@gmail.com
3 years 6 months ago

It is very humorous to read those attacking Vigano can only offer ad hominem attacks. REFUTE HIS CLAIMS!!!! Pope Francis is silent as can be...probably because he was complicit in reinstating homo-predator to active ministry knowing of his sin. We have to remember that many of these homo-predators, excuse me, "clericalists" were allied with Bergoglio in the satanic San Gallen group. A group that included such deplorables as Martini, Daneels, Bergoglio, etc. They cuddled with each other plotting the undermining of Pope St. John Paul II and Bensdict XVI because they were too faithful. Evil men covering for evil men. May God render judgement on them all and may we be ready for the same.

F C
3 years 6 months ago

justinreany@gmail.com
Have you ever tried to refute the claim that unicorns exist? BTW you seem to have your political prejudices a little muddled - please note that if there is truth in Vigano's "testimony", then it applies contra Popes JPII and BXVI as well as Pope Francis.

Eddy LeRoque
3 years 6 months ago

Mr. Vigano sounds so much nicer. A schismatic financed by merchants ! Latae sententiae upon them all. They want to do the damage Putin has committed upon The Orthodox Church.

Tim O'Leary
3 years 6 months ago

Below I have a link to the full 3rd testimony letter from Viganò (English version). It must be taken seriously and deserves a full response from the USCCB and Holy See. My biggest concern from his 1st letter was his call for Pope Francis to resign, which was wrong even if his charges were true. He has backed away from that here. He correctly notes that Cardinal Ouellet confirmed his most important claim (that McCarrick was sanctioned, albeit not canonically, which he never actually claimed). It definitely adds to the detail of the charges, of dates, documents and names, which can be verified or refuted. Vigano is in earnest as he agrees with Ouellet that his charges have spiritual consequences for himself: "I am an old man, one who knows he must soon give an accounting to the Judge for his actions and omissions, one who fears Him who can cast body and soul into hell." HIs continued charges against the gay lobby must also be taken very seriously, given that McCarrick was promoted when his aggressive homosexuality was "well-known" in some clerical circles.

http://m.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/archbishop-vigano-responds-to-cardinal-ouellets-letter-with-new-testimony

Vince Killoran
3 years 6 months ago

"With no new evidence." Enough said. How about "no concrete evidence whatsoever"?

The Archbishop grows increasingly desperate. I can't wait to see how he emerges from his hideout.

Jack Feehily
3 years 6 months ago

Vigano did not include any "documentation" for his outrageous charges against Peter. He makes references to uncorroborated sources. So let's get this straight--no pun intended. We have a big calamity going on because St. John Paul II promoted Theodore McCarrick to Metuchen, Newark, and Washington D.C, and then elevated him to the rank of cardinal although there were reports that he was homosexually inclined and had acted upon those inclinations. Does Vigano suppose that there is something particularly unusual that Popes have promoted homosexuals to the ranks of bishops and cardinals. Doesn't everyone know that there are many homosexuals who are faithfully married and parents of children, men who may have fallen into sin but who got up and repented. We have an obsession about this particular human failing as if it were the sin against the Holy Spirit. It is up to those making accusations to provide proof of rumors and stories. Yes there was something behind McCarrick's meteoric rise but not in the sense that it was innovative. I've heard "stories" about a number of hierarchs but absolutely no proof to substantiate them. Most of them are deceased and went to their graves in the hope of rising again. Shall we disinter them and throw them into the Tiber as a demonstration of our hard heartedness?

Cynthia Rivera Prestgard
3 years 6 months ago

Here's an interesting take from Dr. Marshall: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8WMHtZXgMw&feature=youtu.be

F C
3 years 6 months ago

Vigano’s “testimony” bubbles down to two big allegations: 1) the Pope either colluded in corruption or has been “gravely negligent” in handling the McCarrick affair; and 2) the “hierarchy of the Church” has been corrupted by homosexual networks among clergy.

His three letters are loaded with hearsay and innuendo, they use inflammatory language and incite moral panic, but they offer no or little evidence. He appeals to others to come forward to fill the gap – but so far this has produced nothing useful to him, and in the case of Cardinal Ouellet’s response, actually backfired.

Could it be that Vigano has overplayed his hand?

Dutch Brewster
3 years 6 months ago

It's funny that the writer of this article actually pens these words: "Many have accused Archbishop Viganò of 'creating confusion and division in the church' through his testimony", as if reporting widespread sexual misconduct is worse than the actual widespread sexual misconduct and coverup. Then the writer repeats the accusations of some (many?), essentially: "Why did you wait so long to say anything, Vigano". Isn't it better that someone finally broke silence than that many others remain tight-lipped about the pederasty and other sexual perversions that have been going on in the church around the world and for decades? Clericalism, whatever that may mean, causes sexual predation on children and students and priests under one's authority? These sins are committed by folks who aren't clerics, too, so they have nothing to do with "clericalism", a straw man adopted by those who wish to conceal the true nature of their evil. St. Paul never mentions clericalism in his list of the works of the flesh in Galatians. He does mention adultery, fornication, uncleanness, licentiousness, and idolatry, among others. It's time for some major surgery on the Catholic Church, from top to bottom, but especially at the top.

Tim O'Leary
3 years 6 months ago

This is significant, cannot be a coincidence. Pope Francis (or the Holy Spirit) selected Feb 21 for the Synod on McCarrick's cover-up. This is the feast day of St. Peter Damian, Doctor of the Church, and most famous for his "Vigano-like" revelations of homosexual abuse among clergy in the Church in his time. In 2009, Pope BXVI described him as "one of the most significant figures of the 11th century...a fearless man of the Church, committed personally to the task of reform." (link below).

http://frregisscanlon.com/index.php/2018/10/16/february-21-an-intriguing-date-for-a-meeting-of-bishops/

The latest from america

U.S. Catholic bishops expressed sorrow and called out racism and gun violence after a mass shooting in Buffalo, New York was motivated by racial hatred.
A girl poses for a photo in the living room at her orphanage in Kabul, Afghanistan, Oct. 10, 2021. Researchers estimate that 7.5 million children have been orphaned during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of orphaned children jumped 90 percent during delta variant surge. (CNS photo/Jorge Silva, Reuters)
Researchers report that pandemic-associated orphanhood and caregiver loss are increasing at an unparalleled speed.
Kevin ClarkeMay 16, 2022
Israeli police confront mourners as they carry the casket of slain Al Jazeera veteran journalist Shireen Abu Akleh during her funeral in east Jerusalem, Friday, May 13, 2022.
Shireen Abu Akleh—a Palestinian-American, a Catholic and a 25-year veteran of Al Jazeera’s satellite channel—was shot Wednesday while covering an Israeli military raid in the Jenin refugee camp.
At times, by over-emphasizing our efforts to do good works, we have created an ideal of holiness excessively based on ourselves.
Pope FrancisMay 15, 2022