Archbishop Vigano's Credibility Under Severe Scrutiny

The anti-Pope Francis brigade in the Catholic Church has been foaming at the mouth almost from the time the Holy Father first stepped onto the papal balcony in 2013, looking for ways to discredit him and push him out.  They are now ecstatic because they believe they have finally found that silver bullet to take down Pope Francis.  That silver bullet is Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano.  Vigano has charged Pope Francis with being complicit with the now disgraced former Cardinal McCarrick and has demanded his resignation.  Michael Voris called it a "day of victory."  Truly, that is how many felt when the Vigano memo was released on Saturday night.

The foes of Pope Francis feel they gained a further victory Sunday when the Pope refused to answer any questions in regard to the allegations made against him.  I guess these same people would have felt that the Pharisees gained a victory when Jesus Christ refused to answer their accusations against Him.

It should be noted that Vigano is also refusing to comment, but somehow that doesn't seem to be a problem with the anti Francis forces.

A lot of people have been asking why Vigano released his memo when he did.  This is all old information that he has supposedly been sitting on for many years.  If he felt that corruption among the popes and bishops is such a huge issue, putting many people at risk, why did he wait so long to come forward? The New York Times speculated HERE:

The letter, a bombshell written by Carlo Maria Viganò, the former top Vatican diplomat in the United States and a staunch critic of the pope’s, seemed timed to do more than simply derail Francis’ uphill efforts to win back the Irish faithful, who have turned away from the church in large numbers.

Its unsubstantiated allegations and personal attacks amounted to an extraordinary public declaration of war against Francis’ papacy at perhaps its most vulnerable moment, intended to unseat a pope whose predecessor, Benedict XVI, was the first pontiff to resign in nearly 600 years.

I can think of no more apt description of the document submitted by the former Papal Nuncio. This truly has been like the shot heard round the world, designed to call troops to action into war against the Vatican.

And it was all very well coordinated. Lifesitenews and Catholic Register released this report at the exact same time. It was released on Saturday night, and almost immediately Fr. John Zuhlsdorf had it up on his blog and had even done an hour long podcast on it when most people were not even aware of the letter's existence. Michael Voris immediately had it all over his website, calling for the Pope's resignation. At least one bishop in Tyler, Texas had a statement ready to go to be read in all his churches the following morning which basically gave his imprimatur to the letter.

We are told by these sources that Archbishop Vigano and his letter have absolute credibility and we shouldn't even think about questioning it. Vigano is a man of complete integrity, with had no reason to lie. Zuhlsdorf told us, "Viganò is absolutely reliable." And because he is John Zuhlsdorf, there is absolutely no reason to question his statement.

Unfortunately, Vigano actually does have some credibility problems, such as shutting down a sexual abuse investigation in the Minneapolis/St. Paul Diocese, and setting up Pope Francis to meet with Kim Davis, an action which actually got Vigano fired. At first, Zuhlsdorf tried to just wave these away as nothing more than strong arm tactics to discredit Vigano:

That’s the tactic now. Discredit Viganò by reminding people of the Pope’s meeting with Kim Davis (who refused to sign same-sex marriage certificates) and Archbp. Neinstedt, who resigned after not taking care of credible accusations made about priests, but whose TRUE crime was his strong opposition to legalization of same-sex marriage through a change to the Minnesota Constitution.

There is no one who can spin like Zuhsldorf.  He is the reigning champ.

But these allegations would not go away, so Zuhlsdorf handled them a little differently today:

I say that the allegations about Viganò’s handling of the Neinstedt case are troubling. There are real questions about his possible effort to squash evidence about Neinstedt’s lifestyle.  My suspicion is, if Viganò asked that some evidence be hidden or destroyed, he did that at the request of his own very shady superiors.  Does that excuse?  No.  It might explain.  There are questions.

That said, I don’t think those questions – factual or not – outweigh the content of the Viganò Testimony, which stands on its own merits. [Emphasis Zuhlsdorf]

Ah, that is some spin.  Zuhlsdorf really should give classes on how to spin facts.

The problem is the Vigano memo does not stand on its own merits.  Now, as I have shown, you wouldn't know that from the people who are holding it up and using it as a battering ram to push Pope Francis out of of office.  But as also shown above, that is not how more impartial sources, such as the New York Times, see it, calling these allegations "unsubstantiated."  How unsubstantiated are they?

The best article that I have found answering this questions is from America Magazine in a post entitled, "Viganò’s accusations: What we know and what questions they raise."

At the very beginning of the article is a most interesting picture taken in 2013:

Back row from left: Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, President John Garvey, and Cardinal Seán O’Malley, O.F.M. Cap. Front row, from left: Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, Cardinal Justin Rigali, and Archbishop Allen Vigneron.

Yes, that is correct. Archbishop Vigano is seated right next to former Cardinal McCarrick in 2013. Explanation to follow.

The article first reviews the allegations made by Vigano, and then briefly reviews the cover up orchestrated by Vigano in Minneapolis/St. Paul.

At this point, the America article gets into the central allegation by Vigano that McCarrick was put under sanctions by Pope Benedict in either 2010 or 2011.  I have left the links:

Others say that one of the central claims of the letter, that Pope Benedict placed sanctions on Cardinal McCarrick, which were kept secret, that were later lifted by Pope Francis, does not hold up. According to Vigano, who says he learned about them from Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, the sanctions were placed in 2009 or 2010. Initial reporting by the National Catholic Register said that the retired pope remembers ordering the sanctions but not their exact nature. But Cardinal McCarrick continued to keep a public profile during Benedict’s pontificate.

In 2011, he celebrated Mass and preached publicly, including an ordination in June and again in October at Saint Patrick’s Cathedral [I linked to this in a previous post]. He also testified before the U.S. Congress, he appeared on Meet The Press, and he also accepted at least two awards.

The following year, then-Cardinal McCarrick accompanied other U.S. bishops to a meeting in January with Pope Benedict at the Vatican. During the same trip, he concelebrated Mass with Cardinal Wuerl and the other U.S. bishops at the tomb of St. Peter.

Pictured from left are: Bishop Paul S. Loverde of Arlington, VA; Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, retired archbishop of Washington; Cardinal Donald W. Wuerl of Washington; Cardinal-designate Edwin F. O’Brien, grand master of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulcher of Jerusalem; and Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio, head of the U.S. Archdiocese for the Military Services (CNS photo)

In April, then-Cardinal McCarrick was back in Rome, part of a delegation from The Papal Foundation to wish Pope Benedict a happy birthday.

Cardinal McCarrick was even present at Pope Benedict’s final meeting with the cardinals in 2013 before he stepped down; the pair are seen shaking hands.

McCarrick Shaking Hands With Pope Benedict in 2013

Finally, we come to the description of the picture at the beginning of the article, showing McCarrick and Vigano sitting side by side after concelebrating a Mass, along with Cardinal Wuerl, Cardinal Dolan, Cardinal O'Malley and Archbishop Allen Vigneron (Read it and weep, Michael Voris. Yes, Archbishop Vigano concelebrated Mass with your own hated Detroit Ordinary, Allen Vigneron). From the America article:

In May of 2013, just two months after Francis was elected pope, Archbishop Viganò concelebrated a Mass, along with Cardinal McCarrick and Cardinal Wuerl, before The Catholic University of America’s Annual Cardinals’ Dinner, hosted by the school’s president, John Garvey.

Someone really needs to explain how McCarrick was able to travel and appear so frequently, including in the Vatican with Pope Benedict XVI, when he was supposedly under severe sanctions from Pope Benedict.  Something is seriously wrong here.

The America magazine article continues:

Still others have pointed to Archbishop’s Viganò’s perceived hostility toward Pope Francis, noting that the pope recalled the archbishop from his post in 2016. The decision came after the Vatican decided Archbishop Viganò had become too enmeshed in U.S. culture wars, particularly regarding same-sex marriage: He arranged the meeting between Pope Francis and Kim Davis, the former Kentucky clerk who refused to sign a marriage certificate for a same-sex couple, blindsiding the pope during his 2015 U.S. visit.

The timing of the letter’s release has also raised questions. It was made available early to news outlets in the United States and Italy known for their opposition to Pope Francis and its timing,in the midst of Pope Francis’ two-day visit to Ireland for the World Meeting of Families and on the eve of his return journey to Rome, seemed designed to force the pope to confront the allegations during his customary in-flight press conference.

Archbishop Viganò has also not explained why he did not make his grave concerns about then-Cardinal McCarrick’s behavior known publicly sooner.

The claims that then-Cardinal McCarrick acted as “kingmaker” may also be overblown, according to some church experts. David Gibson, director of Fordham's Center on Religion and Culture who formerly covered the Vatican as a journalist, told America that this claim seemed to be “highly exaggerated because it serves Viganò’s purposes,” but noted that it may also reflect “McCarrick’s sense of his own influence and importance.” He said that while it is true that Archbishop McCarrick shared many of Francis’ priorities and had some influence, “there were many other people with more influence, particularly with regard to the selection of bishops.”

The conclusion of the article raises some very crucial questions:

The archbishop has so far refused to speak to the press about the allegations in his letter, other than to confirm that he wrote it, so a number of questions remain. Most urgently, did Francis know about allegations of sexual misconduct leveled against then-Cardinal McCarrick but nonetheless urge him to act as a global diplomat? If so, why?

Also, why did then-Cardinal McCarrick continue his public ministry throughout Benedict’s papacy if the former pope had sanctioned the D.C. archbishop? What, if anything, was Francis told specifically about the allegations facing then-Cardinal McCarrick? Is Cardinal Wuerl telling the truth when he says he was not aware of the allegations against his predecessor and that he was unaware of the alleged sanctions imposed on him by Rome?

There are further questions about the exact nature of the sanctions imposed by Benedict on then-Cardinal McCarrick. The National Catholic Register reported that it had “independently confirmed that the allegations against McCarrick were certainly known to Benedict, and the Pope Emeritus remembers instructing Cardinal Bertone to impose measures but cannot recall their exact nature.” Since the Register does not claim that it was Benedict himself who confirmed issuing the sanctions, who knew of these sanctions and remembers their nature, and whether details of them were documented and available to Francis, remain open questions. 

Despite all of these holes poked in the letter, and the unanswered questions arising from it, we still have Catholics all over the Internet calling for the Pope's resignation, including Michael Voris who had vowed never to publicly speak against the Pope.  Zuhlsdorf won't actually say in words that the Pope must resign, but he makes it very clear with such postings as THIS:

Matt Walsh at Daily Wire writes:

[…]

A few points about all of this:

1) There are no flattering ways to interpret Pope Francis’ non-denial. Either he is guilty as sin or he has so much disdain and hubris in his heart that he does not think he owes anyone an explanation. I suppose a third possibility is that the man has gone completely senile. But until Vatican doctors testify to the latter option, we are left choosing between the first two or both combined.

Whichever is true, Francis’ answer is shameful. Catholic faithful around the world had already been deeply distressed and heartbroken as they watched their beloved Church gasping and staggering under the weight of cowardice, debauchery, and corruption. Now that the Pope has been implicated, many Catholics have found themselves teetering on the edge of despair. In the face of such scandal and pain, Francis has nothing to offer but smugness. It is disgraceful.

[…]

2) If the allegations are true, Pope Francis must resign. He would lack the moral capacity to lead even a local parish in North Dakota, let alone the entire Church. If he will not resign, then he must be pushed out. The message would need to be sent from every good Bishop, every good priest, and every good Catholic lay person, that they will not tolerate such abuses from anyone — even the Pope. Especially the Pope.

3) But that raises the central question: are the allegations true? They are certainly credible, as they come from a reliable and knowledgeable source and are well-detailed and documented. They have been corroborated by at least one witness and aspects of the story have apparently been confirmed by Benedict. Many of the people implicated are known cowards and liars, so Vigano would seem to have the edge in a “he said/they said” debate. Vigano’s story also sounds reasonable and fits into the overall puzzle. These factors do not remove all doubt, but they do remove a significant portion of the doubt.

[…] 

Is there any doubt we are in the midst of a rebellion within the Church? And it is being fought with lies, deceptions and manipulations on the part of those who want to destroy the Papacy. I can't judge their motives. Maybe they truly believe they are doing the right thing. But it is one of the most evil things I have witnessed in the Church, straight from Satan himself. We are truly entering into our own passion, and Pope Francis is at the heart of it. Please pray for him.

How do we deal with this rebellion in the Church? Go to Mass every day if you can. Frequent the Sacraments. Pray the Rosary. Spend time in adoration. Get as close to our Lord as you can. Call out to our Blessed Mother, who will always lead us in the way of truth. Always question everything you hear and read. Look at the source and do a little research to see what their position has been in the past. And pray, pray, pray. The evil one is busy, and he wants to take out as many as he can. Don't be one of those he sweeps away.