Cardinal Vigano Memo: Something Is Definitely Off

Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, former apostolic nuncio to the United States, just released an 11-page memo accusing Pope Francis of deliberately covering up for Cardinal McCarrick and demanding the Holy Father's immediate resignation. You can read the memo HERE.

As the New York Times reports:

In a detailed, 7,000-word letter published Sunday morning by several conservative Catholic outlets antagonistic to Francis, including The National Catholic Register and Lifesite News, Archbishop Viganò alleges that much of the Vatican hierarchy was complicit in covering up accusations that Cardinal Theodore McCarrick had sexually abused seminarians.

Alarm bells start going off right here. Why did Vigano give his story to "conservative Catholic outlets antagonistic to Francis"? Hmmm.

The Times continues:

Last month, Francis accepted the resignation of Cardinal McCarrick, the first such resignation in living memory, after The New York Times and other news outlets published accounts of the alleged abuse and an internal investigation by the American church deemed credible an accusation that he had sexually abused a minor.

But Archbishop Viganò alleges that Francis’ predecessor, Benedict XVI, had already punished Cardinal McCarrick for his abuse of seminarians and priests. The archbishop writes that Benedict banned the American cardinal from publicly celebrating Mass, living in a seminary and traveling to give lectures.

Now the story is getting really confusing.  This is the first time it has ever been reported or even inferred that Pope Benedict XVI acted against McCarrick in any way. You can search everywhere, and you will not find anyone making this accusation.   Even Vigano, giving himself credit for bringing the McCarrick scandal to Benedict's attention, does not know when the sanctions were supposedly imposed, as he writes in his memo:

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. 

I do not know when Pope Benedict took these measures against McCarrick, whether in 2009 or 2010, because in the meantime I had been transferred to the Governorate of Vatican City State, just as I do not know who was responsible for this incredible delay. 

Are we truly expected to believe that draconian sanctions were imposed on one of the most powerful cardinals in the United States, and no one knew about it?  It really does stretch credulity.  As the Times tells us, the only confirmation we have of this allegation is from the National Catholic Register, which gives no proof:

The National Catholic Register, which has been a preferred platform for some of Francis’ most aggressive critics, reported that it had independently confirmed the allegations, but it did not publish any on-the-record corroboration and asserted, without attribution, that Pope Benedict “remembers” telling his second-in-command, Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone, “to impose measures but cannot recall their exact nature.” 

So Pope Benedict "remembers" imposing measures, but doesn't know what they were?  Huh?  And of course, there is no official statement or confirmation from anyone, only this vague assertion by the Register.   As the Times tells us:

Cardinal McCarrick led several public Masses throughout Benedict’s papacy, but Archbishop Viganò alleges that the penalties were known about within the hierarchy and that he had personally informed Francis of them in June 2013.

HERE is a post by Rod Dreher, a Catholic conservative with no love for McCarrick, writing about one of McCarrick's victims in a post dated July 25, 2018.  According to this article, the victim, James, said the last time he saw McCarrick was in 2012.  Dreher write:

The last time he saw McCarrick, James says, was in 2012. He confronted the retired cardinal and told him that if he didn’t agree to say the funeral mass for his mother, he was going to expose their past.

“Theodore told me, ‘No way you can do that, because you’re a drunk and no one’s going to believe you. Don’t you know how important I am?’”

If McCarrick was living under the sanctions imposed by Pope Benedict in 2009 or 2010, as alleged by Vigano, there is no way that laity would have had access to him in 2012, and McCarrick certainly would not be allowed to say a funeral mass for anyone.   And why would McCarrick protest that no one would believe the victim if he, McCarrick, was under sanctions at that exact moment for that very abuse?

There is another piece of very damning evidence that calls into question the truthfulness of Vigano's allegation of sanctions imposed upon McCarrick by Pope Benedict.  Vigano claims the sanctions included the following:

. . . 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

There is an article on website of The Franciscan Vocation Ministry in Manhattan dated June 14, 2011. It is entitled, "Cardinal McCarrick Ordains Two Friars."  It concerns the ordination Mass of two friars:

Presiding at the 11 a.m. Mass was Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, archbishop emeritus of Washington, D.C. He was assisted by Provincial Minister Fr. John O’Connor, OFM, Provincial Vicar Fr. Dominic Monti, OFM, and Fr. Thomas Conway, OFM, director of post-novitiate formation.

This Mass was celebrated on May 21, 2011.  If it was true that sanctions were imposed on McCarrick in 2009 or 2010 as reported by Vigano, this would not have been possible.  Below is a picture of McCarrick with the friars he ordained in 2011:

Fr. Cidouane Joseph, OFM, and Fr. Erick Lopex, OFM, pose with
Cardinal Theodore McCarrick (center) after their ordination to the priesthood.

Here also is a Youtube video of McCarrick recorded in 2013 prior to the election of Pope Francis.  If we are to believe Vigano, it would not have been possible for McCarrick to have made this video because he was living under sanctions, forbidden to make any public appearances.

The New York Times continues:

[Vigano] said that Francis had failed to apply the sanctions on Cardinal McCarrick and had instead rehabilitated and empowered him to help choose powerful American bishops. Archbishop Viganò despises those bishops, and he complained in the letter of being deprived the voice typically given to a papal nuncio in choosing them.

“He knew from at least June 23, 2013, that McCarrick was a serial predator,” Archbishop Viganò writes of Francis, calling for the pope’s resignation.

“In this extremely dramatic moment for the universal Church, he must acknowledge his mistakes and, in keeping with the proclaimed principle of zero tolerance, Pope Francis must be the first to set a good example for cardinals and bishops who covered up McCarrick’s abuses and resign along with all of them.”

Vigano says that Pope Francis knew of McCarrick because he, Vigano, told him.  Even if this is true, Pope Francis would have been completely derelict in his duties to accept the word of one person, no matter who that person was.  Looking into it and investigating it would be a very good thing to do.  But to immediately throw McCarrick out just on the word of one person would be a grave miscarriage of justice.

Per the preceding paragraphs from the Times, Vigano further accuses Pope Francis of working closely with McCarrick to appoint the most liberal bishops possible.  Vigano wants us to believe that basically, Francis and McCarrick were partners in crime, and that Francis is in complete agreement with McCarrick on everything.

The Times reports a further contradiction in the Archbishop's memo:

At a 2013 reception in the library of the Apostolic Palace in the Vatican shortly after Francis was elected pope, Archbishop Viganò was effusive with praise for Francis, calling him “a man you may talk to with an open heart” and saying his audience was “extremely nice, extremely warm.”

But in the letter, he said he had received an icy reception from Pope Francis. And he said the pope had told him on June 23, 2013: “The bishops in the United States must not be ideologized, they must not be right-wing.” Francis then added, according to Archbishop Viganò, “They must not be left-wing, and when I say left-wing I mean homosexual.”

So, Your Excellency, which is it?  Was your first report of Pope Francis as "a man you may talk to with an open heart. . . extremely nice extremely warm" the truth?  Or is your memo, which completely contradicts your first statement, the truth?

As the Times reports, Archbishop Vigano is no stranger to controversy:

In early 2011, hostile anonymous articles attacking Archbishop Viganò began appearing in the Italian news media, the bulletin board of Vatican power politics. Archbishop Viganò appealed to Benedict’s second in command, Cardinal Bertone, who instead echoed the articles’ complaints about his rough management style and removed Archbishop Viganò from his post.

Those appeals and protests, later leaked by the pope’s butler, became the heart of the church scandal known as VatiLeaks, which many church observers say contributed to the resignation of Benedict XVI.

Archbishop also pulled a very embarrassing stunt on Pope Francis while he was in the United States:

Francis removed Archbishop Viganò from his job as nuncio to the United States in 2016, in part for nearly ruining the pope’s trip the United States by giving papal face time to Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk whose refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Archbishop Vigano also has his own personal sexual abuse cover-up scandal:

Soon after his departure, a criminal investigation into a bishop in Minneapolis-St. Paul revealed a memo that Archbishop Viganò had written in 2014 in an effort to suppress a church investigation into alleged homosexual activity by the Minnesota bishop.

This scandal involved Archbishop John Nienstedt, who was being investigated not only for cover up abuse but for sexual scandals of his own in Minneapolis/St. Paul.  Nienstedt eventually resigned. From an article dated July 21, 2016 in The National Catholic Reporter:

The Vatican envoy to the United States [Vigano] quashed an investigation into alleged homosexual activity on the part of Archbishop John Nienstedt and ordered a piece of evidence destroyed, according to an 11-page memo unsealed Wednesday afternoon.

In the memo, Fr. Dan Griffith, then-Delegate for Safe Environment for the St. Paul-Minneapolis archdiocese, stated that in April 2014 Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, apostolic nuncio to the U.S., ordered two auxiliary bishops to have a St. Paul law firm quickly wrap its investigation and later that month instructed them to destroy a letter they had sent Vigano pushing back on his request. 

. . .

According to the memo, at a midpoint in the investigation in April 2014 Vigano, during a meeting with Auxiliary Bishops Lee Piché and Andrew Cozzens, ordered it quickly shut down and its scope tightened and inhibited. At one point, he also allegedly demanded that the two bishops destroy a piece of evidence -- a letter they had sent him earlier that month expressing disagreement with his decision. 

It is cliche but true that we can know a person by the company he keeps.  This is reported by the New York Times:

Since his return to Rome, Archbishop Viganò has run with a crowd of traditionalist Catholics deeply critical of Pope Francis and recently attended a raucous meeting of anti-Francis prelates and faithful in the basement of a Rome hotel, where he could be seen talking to the Lifesite news reporter who translated the letter into English.

Archbishop Vigano's memo would never hold up in a court of law.  It is entirely circumstantial.  It is written by a man known to associate with those opposed to Pope Francis.  It is a "he said, he said" scenario.  And it is contradicted by facts.  I am not privy to any information other than what I present here.  I was not present at the meetings on which he reports, and it seems no one else knows anything about them either.  But I contend that he has not met the burden of truth in his memo.

Of course, the Catholic Internet will take no notice of any of this.  Here is an archbishop calling for the immediate resignation of the man they hate the most - Pope Francis.  The Internet will be ablaze with this refrain.  You will hear and read the most vile comments imaginable regarding Pope Francis. Many will declare his papacy invalid, and will separate themselves from him.  This truly could become a major schism in the Church.

Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano will have much for which he has to answer.