UPDATED: Why I Don't Believe Archbishop Vigano

I admit that I have been skeptical of Archbishop Vigano's accusations against Pope Francis from the first time I read them.  The list of reasons for my skepticism has grown with each day.  

Archbishop Vigano's main accusation is that Pope Francis knew that former Cardinal McCarrick was a sexual predator, and turned a blind eye, lifting the secret sanctions that were imposed upon McCarrick by Pope Benedict. Vigano goes even further in accusing Pope Francis of forming an alliance with McCarrick to push the "homosexual agenda" in the Church.

There are several problems with these allegations.  

First, who has ever heard of "secret sanctions"?  The whole purpose of calling someone out for grave sin is not only to bring him or her to repentance, but also to show the rest of the Church the gravity of that sin.  

If Pope Benedict was aware of McCarrick's crimes (as Pope Francis calls his actions), wouldn't he want to do everything possible to protect the rest of the Church from McCarrick?  How can that be done unless McCarrick is publicly marked?   Do we "secretly" sentence criminals to jail, and then just turn a blind eye if they refuse to go?

To accuse Pope Benedict of imposing "secret sanctions" is to accuse Pope Benedict of dereliction of duty. And yet these same accusers are clamoring for this "derelict pope" to be returned to the papacy. 

 
Let me make it very clear. I do not believe Pope Benedict was derelict in his duties.

The whole idea of "secret sanctions" truly does not pass the smell test. I ain't buying it.

Secondly, it would almost seem that Pope Benedict himself did not know of the "secret sanctions" as McCarrick was constantly making public appearances, celebrating Mass, ordaining priests, receiving awards, etc. etc. during this time. And of course, McCarrick was seen at the Vatican more than once being warmly greeted by Pope Benedict.

Pope Benedict greeting then Cardinal McCarrick at the Vatcian on
the day of the Pope's resignation, February 28, 2013

Was Pope Benedict so weak that not only could he not stop McCarrick from a public life, he couldn't even stop McCarrick from coming to the Vatican? If Benedict knew that McCarrick was such a dangerous person, why did he continue to allow him to act in his duties as a cardinal?

Pope Francis' enemies are trying to get around this by saying that McCarrick was disobedient and could not be reigned in.  Well, Pope Francis seems to have gotten McCarrick under control.  Why didn't Benedict?

This does not seem to be passing the smell test at all.

However, Edward Pentin of The National Catholic Register tried to tell us that the Register "independently confirmed" that Benedict imposed "measures" against McCarrick.

This was Pentin's initial statement:

The Register has 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.

These "facts" given to us by Pentin are almost laughable.  Pentin makes this authoritative statement with absolutely NO substantiation.  We are given no details whatsoever.  We don't know if the "confirmation" was a person, a document, or a little bird whispering in Pentin's ear  We don't know when or under what circumstances Pentin either found or was given this information.  There are no corroborating sources whatsoever.

No credible news organization would ever publish such shoddy reporting.

Vigano's testimony says that Pope Benedict placed basically the same sanctions upon McCarrick as Pope Francis did.  Yet, according to Pentin, Pope Benedict does not remember this.

So according to Pentin, Pope Benedict took "measures" against one of the most powerful cardinals in the world, but the Pope Emeritus cannot remember what those measures were.

Contrary to Pentin's assertion, this does not confirm Vigano's allegations in the least.

Again, this just does not pass the smell test.  In fact, the smell is becoming worse.

However, for a moment we will accept this highly implausible scenario that McCarrick was placed under strict sanctions by Benedict similar to those actually imposed by Francis.  If that is true, the two popes went about this in very different ways.

When Pope Francis imposed sanctions against McCarrick, the first step was McCarrick's resignation from the College of Cardinals.  Why didn't Benedict demand McCarrick's resignation?  Why did he allow McCarrick to remain in the College of Cardinals?

Or did McCarrick "secretly resign" from the College of Cardinals?  (My head is spinning!)

When Pope Benedict allegedly imposed sanctions on McCarrick, he did so through the Secretary of State, Cardinal Bertone.  Since Pope Benedict allegedly doesn't remember what "measures" he took against McCarrick, why hasn't anyone asked Cardinal Bertone?  Certainly he would be able to tell us.

For some reason, Pentin has not thought of contacting Cardinal Bertone and getting a comment from him.  Why?

NONE of this passes the smell test.  In fact, I have to leave the room because the stench is overpowering.

And now a problem has developed for Pentin in the last couple of days.  Pope Benedict's secretary made a very public and unequivocal statement that Pope Benedict has never commented on or confirmed the Vigano memorandum to anyone, nor does he intend to do so. In fact, Pope Benedict's secretary called this "Fake News!"

You can find this report HERE:

Archbishop Georg Gänswein, private secretary of Benedict XVI, has rejected the claim that the emeritus Pope had confirmed the allegations of former Vatican diplomat Carlo Viganò. "Pope Benedict has not commented on the 'memorandum' of Archbishop Viganò and will not do so," Gänswein told the newspaper. The claim that the emeritus Pope had confirmed the statements lacked any foundation. "Fake news!" Says Gänswein.

As Crux reports, Archbishop Gänswein spoke with Italian publication Ansa, and denounced the reports that Pope Benedict had confirmed Vigano's allegations in even harsher language:

In early reporting, some media outlets claimed that Benedict, or sources close to him, had “confirmed” those claims [that Benedict had confirmed Vigano's account].

“[Benedict] has never seen the document that was published,” Gänswein told the Italian news agency Ansa. “He’s never read it, and he has not endorsed it. It’s all rubbish.”

Now THAT is strong language.  I don't see how Pope Benedict could distance himself any further from Vigano and his allegations.

Pentin immediately rushed out to "clarify" his original reporting, and wrote the following in response to the statement from Pope Benedict's secretary:

What Archbishop Gänswein said is entirely accurate: Any assertion that the Pope Emeritus had seen the entire testimony, and confirmed it, is untrue.  

The Register also never reported this.

And yes, Mr. Pentin is correct.  He never wrote that "the Pope Emeritus had seen the entire testimony and confirmed it." In fact, as I wrote above, Pentin gives NO information as to how he "confirmed" that Benedict did indeed impose "measures" against McCarrick.   

Continuing with Pentin's response to Archbishop Gänswein:

What we did report, given by an inside source close to Benedict in July, was that Benedict had issued sanctions against then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick but was unable to remember their precise nature.

That has not been denied.

Pentin is now supplying us with "facts" that he did not divulge in his initial reporting.  

Pentin's first report did not use the word "sanctions." He told us Pope Benedict imposed "measures".  "Measures" may or may not be the same as "sanctions".

Why did Pentin use the word "measures" in his first report, but now uses the word "sanctions" in his response to Archbishop Gänswein?

Pentin needs to clarify this discrepancy.

However, as I have already written above, even if we concede that Benedict imposed sanctions upon McCarrick, Pentin also made it very clear in his initial report that Pope Benedict does not remember the "precise nature" of those sanctions.

You can't say that Benedict confirmed sanctions and at the same time admit that Benedict can't remember their "precise nature". It just doesn't work.

Pentin also tells us for the first time that he was given this information in July by "an inside source close to Benedict".

This contradicts Archbishop Gänswein who said Benedict never confirmed Vigano's allegations of "secret sanctions" to anyone. The archbishop did not say "anyone with the exception of those closest to Pope Benedict."

Then there is the big question of why Pentin was even talking to "an inside source close to Benedict" in July about secret sanctions imposed by Benedict upon McCarrick? Vigano's allegations did not come out until August. Up to that time, no one in the entire world had ever publicly discussed or revealed "secret sanctions" imposed upon McCarrick in 2009 or 2010.

What in the world caused an "inside source close to Benedict" to betray Pope Benedict by talking to a journalist about something that Benedict supposedly never meant to be made public?

Pentin does not explain this in his written response to Archbishiop Gänswein.

However, Pentin did a softball interview with his parent company, EWTN, in which he gives this explanation:

In July, a month before Archbishop Vigano's testimony was written, I spoke to a source close to Benedict who did confirm that Benedict remembered issuing sanctions on Cardinal McCarrick, but the source said, uh, Benedict could not recall the precise nature of those sanctions. Now I didn't report it at the time as it was unattributed and I was seeking confirmation, but Archbishop Vigano's testimony provided that confirmation.

Archbishop Georg Gänswein, Pope Benedict's personal secretary, rightfully corrected what was reported in the New York Times and calls the New York Times report that Benedict had confirmed Vigano's letter "fake news."

This is really interesting.

Pentin is now supplying us with even more new facts.

Pentin says in this interview that in July, before he supposedly knew about Vigano's allegations, he spoke to "a source close to Benedict" who confirmed that Benedict remembered issuing sanctions but could not remember the "precise nature" of the sanctions.  But Pentin did not report this at that time because it was "unattributed" and he was "seeking confirmation."  Pentin says that Vigano's testimony provided that confirmation.

This statement raises some very troubling questions.

At this point, we still don't know why Pentin was talking to this "inside source."  We still don't know why this "inside source" brought up a matter that had never before been made public.  And Pentin does not give us an explanation.

Further, Pentin is now contradicting himself.  In his first statement and in his response to Pope Benedict's personal secretary, Pentin told us that his "inside source" confirmed Vigano's allegation of secret sanctions against McCarrick.

Now Pentin is telling us that he talked to the "inside source" first.  He did not report this story at that time because of lack of confirmation.  Pentin got this confirmation from Vigano's testimony.

By changing his narrative to say that he talked to the "inside source" before Vigano came forth, Pentin can say that Pope Benedict made these statements to the inside source apart from Vigano's testimony.  It was not Pope Benedict who, through an inside source, confirmed Vigano's report.  It was Vigano who confirmed Pope Benedict's statement to the "inside source."

Therefore, Pentin's story does not contradict Pope Benedict.

What?!

Ed, you are seriously giving me whiplash.  Which of your statements is true?  Did the "inside source" confirm Vigano's allegations, or was it the other way around?

The stench is overpowering.

Of course, we still have the problem that the "inside source" and Vigano's testimony are actually not in agreement.  Vigano says that Benedict imposed sanctions similar to those imposed by Pope Francis, and the "inside source" says Benedict can't remember.

That equals "no confirmation."

Someone needs to explain this to Pentin.

Pentin changed his story yet again in an interview with  another colleague, Raymond Arroyo, on the World Over anti-Pope Francis Propaganda Show on August 30:

Arroyo asks Pentin: Ed, you discovered that [secret sanctions against McCarrick] when? You didn’t discover this after the Vigano report. You actually discovered this a month ago.

Pentin: Yea, this is an inquiry I made following the revelations of Cardinal McCarrick. I was, I had given sort of advance notice about this testimony, so I wanted to find out before then just what Pope Benedict knew and really to find out if there were any sanctions imposed because if they were and they were lifted, to know really what they were and to what extent they were imposed. But I found out that Benedict couldn’t really remember what they were.

In this version of Pentin's narrative, Pentin doesn't even mention the "inside source."  He says he made an "inquiry."  He doesn't tell us to whom he made this inquiry.

But somehow Pentin "found out that Benedict couldn't really remember what [the sanctions] were." This narrative is much like his initial report when we aren't told how he discovered this information.

But unless Pentin can read Benedict's mind, someone somewhere would have had to have talked to the Pope Emeritus.  This, of course, contradicts Pope Benedict's personal secretary who says Benedict never talked to anyone about these allegations

Either Pope Benedict is lying when he said he never talked to anyone, or the "source close to Pope Benedict" is lying, or there is no "source close to Benedict." because Pentin made the whole thing up.  

I'll let the reader decide.  

I know, this is really getting confusing.  But you know what they say, "O what a tangled web we weave . . ."

The big takeaway from the Arroyo interview is that Pentin now tells us for the first time that he had "advance notice" in July of the Vigano allegations, a month before Vigano wrote his testimony.  Contrary to his statement in the first EWTN interview, Pentin tells us that this is why he was making inquiries.

Oh now it gets really interesting.  I will discuss this a little further down.

Pentin has twisted himself into knots trying to explain that Pope Benedict confirmed Vigano's allegations without confirming them.   

However, Archbishop Gänswein's comments were specifically aimed not at Pentin but at a report in the New York Times.  Pentin and the original report in the National Catholic Register were not even mentioned by the Archbishop.

The article in the New York Times included an interview with Tim Busch.  Never heard of him?  I hadn't either. But Busch is a very big, behind-the-scenes guy.

Busch is an extremely wealthy (way up in the elite 1% group), conservative Catholic.  He is on the Board of Directors for EWTN, so it would seem that Busch is one of the guys Pentin has to answer to.  Busch also runs an institution called The Napa Institute.

According to a December 2014 article in The National Catholic Reporter;

The Napa Institute is a remarkable mix of religious retreat, networking opportunity, strategy session, wine-tasting vacation, immersion catechetics, pep rally and keyhole glimpse at the U.S. traditionalist Catholic superstructure.

Held at the elegant Meritage Resort and Spa in Napa in late July, it is a gathering of the well-heeled and the high-ranking of both church and economic achievement. It does not pretend to be "big tent" Catholicism, although its outlook is expansive.

If you are not a wealthy, radical right conservative Catholic, or an upper level bishop, the Napa Institute is not for you.  This institution is all about people with money.

As the NCR articles says:

The institute's target audience is clearly spelled out in its strategic plan for 2014-16: "bishops [who want] to get away and reflect on critical issues in the company of other Catholics"; "Catholic professionals (diocesan staff, leaders of Catholic apostolates or institutions)"; and "affluent Catholic leaders who love the Church and want to be better informed to support and carry out the mission of the Church."

The cost of tickets for their events is between $1000 to over $2000, exclusive of travel and accommodations.

The NCR article tells us that:

In 2014, the list of accessible ecclesiastics included two U.S. cardinals, plus more than a dozen bishops and archbishops

The cardinals were William Levada and James Harvey, respectively the immediate past prefects of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the papal household.

The archbishops included the president of the U.S. bishops' conference, Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, Ky., as well as Chaput, Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco and Thomas Wenski of Miami.

Who is among the Napa Institute leadership?  According to their website:

• Fr. Robert Spitzer (priest on EWTN)
• Timothy Busch (also on Board of Directors for EWTN)
• Bishop Chaput
• George Weigel
• Mark Brumley, President Ignatius Press
• Dr. Timothy Gray, President Augustine Institute
• Frank J. Hanna, Hanna Capital Investments
• Archbishop Samuel Aquila of Denver
• Bishop Michael Barber of Oakland
• Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco
• Archbishop Jose H. Gomes of Los Angeles
• Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller
• Bishop Robert Morlino

There are more on the list.  One who is not included but could be is Archbishop Vigano, who is close friends with Timothy Busch and has been for some time.

As you will notice, everyone on this list is highly conservative, and none could be described as a friend of Francis.  Many of these men have spoken out in support of Archbishop Vigano.

The New York Times article specifically referred to by Archbishop Gänswein included an interview with Tim Busch about his involvement with the Vigano memo.

Is it just a coincidence that this very wealthy, highly influential conservative/traditionalist Catholic and board member of EWTN, Tim Busch, along with all of his Napa Institute colleagues, support Archbishop  Vigano and vigorously vouch for his credibility?

Here is the pertinent portion of the Times article:

Two weeks ago, Archbishop Viganò privately shared his plan to speak out with an influential American friend: Timothy Busch, a wealthy, conservative Catholic lawyer on the board of governors of the media network in which Archbishop Viganò ultimately revealed his letter.

“Archbishop Viganò has done us a great service,” Mr. Busch said in a phone interview Sunday night. “He decided to come forward because if he didn’t, he realized he would be perpetuating the cover-up.”

Mr. Busch said he believed Archbishop Viganò’s claims to be “credible,” and that he did not know in advance that the archbishop would choose to publish his attack in the National Catholic Register, which is owned by the Eternal Word Television Network, where Mr. Busch is on the board of governors.

Mr. Busch said leaders of the publication had personally assured him that the former pope, Benedict XVI, had confirmed Archbishop Viganò’s account. Details and accuracy of that confirmation have not been externally verified.

The following is Pentin's written response to Archbishop Gänswein:

In his comments published today in Die Tagespost, Archbishop Gänswein said he was referring to a report published yesterday in The New York Times.

In that article, The New York Times interviewed and quoted Tim Busch, a board member of EWTN. And in comments attributed to him, but without quoting him directly, The Times reported that he told the newspaper that “leaders of the publication [the Register] had personally assured him that the former pope, Benedict XVI, had confirmed Archbishop Viganò’s account.”

Archbishop Gänswein, who is also prefect of the Pontifical Household, denied as “fake news” this assertion as reported by The New York Times, alleging that Benedict had “confirmed Viganò’s account.”

As you can see, Pentin makes a small defense of his boss on the Board of Directors, Tim Busch, by saying that the New York Times did not quote Busch directly.  However, it is very important to note that Pentin does NOT try to claim that Busch did not make this statement.

The Times made it very clear that they had no proof of Busch's claim that Pope Benedict had confirmed Vigano's account.  They were merely reporting Busch's statement from the interview.

This could all be very easily cleared up if we could hear directly from Tim Busch.  It isn't like Pentin does not have access to Busch.  They are part of the same company:  EWTN. It would be very easy to get a statement from Busch saying he never made any such claim.

But nowhere do we hear from Tim Busch.  Busch is a very big and important guy.  But that doesn't change the fact that he really hurt Vigano with this statement to the Times,  As a result, he has now taken himself out of the spotlight, and no one associated with him is going to try to drag him back in.

In his first interview with EWTN, Pentin was asked about the truth of Busch's statement that leaders of the Register had told him Pope Benedict had confirmed Vigano's account:

This is Pentin's answer:

Well Lauren, that's not true.  We did not say to Mr. Busch that Pope Benedict confirmed Vigano's account.  And again, the Register has never said that Pope Benedict corroborated the Nuncio's letter. 

Pentin then gives the statement which I quoted earlier in which he said that he had talked to a source close to Pope Benedict about the sanctions, and that Pentin did not have confirmation of the inside source until Vigano's report.

And that is all we hear about Tim Busch.  Pentin says Busch' statement is not true, but he does not tell us if the New York Times misquoted him or if Busch misspoke, or any other kind of defense.  Why did Busch make this statement? Why didn't the Register immediately call him out on this and correct the record? Why was this statement only addressed by the Register after Archbishop Gänswein called it "fake news" and "rubbish"?

The fact remains that although it was not stated in Pentin's reporting, a representative of EWTN did publicly state that Pope Benedict personally confirmed Vigano's allegations.

That claim, according to Pope Benedict's personal secretary, is nothing but a heap of rotten, stinking manure.

The bottom line to all of this is that the enemies of Pope Francis have now lost their most important "witness":  Pope Benedict.  I am sure they were not expecting this.  They were filled with so much hubris that they felt that they could say anything and get away with it.  They are now finding out that the universe does not always bend to our expectations.

Now it has become impossible to avoid the stench.  Get out the gas masks.

But Pentin was not done in his written response to Pope Benedict's secretary.  At this point, Pentin tries to make it appear that Archbishop Gänswein was not clear in his statement, so we can not really be sure what he was talking about:

He also said Benedict had “no opinion” on the memorandum of Archbishop Viganò. It is not clear what memorandum he is referring to, as a number of memoranda are mentioned in Archbishop Viganò's testimony, and Archbishop Viganò never refers to Benedict’s penal measures on McCarrick as a “memorandum.” Archbishop Gänswein did not go into any more details, but he did not refute that Benedict issued sanctions.

Are you kidding me?!  Are we really suppose to believe that Archbishop Gänswein could possibly have been referring to anything other than the Vigano testimony released on August 25?  Vigano's "testimony" has been referred to as a "memo" all over the media.  Even the reporter, Aldo Maria Valli to whom Vigano gave his testimony referred to it as a memo.  Valli entitled his article, "How Archbishop Viganò gave me his memo. And here’s why I decided to publish it."   I guess, according to Pentin, we can't be sure what memo Mr. Valli was referring to.

C'mon Ed, you can do better than that!  That is absolutely insulting our intelligence and makes you look desperate.

I don't think it is an accident that Pentin has not repeated this ridiculous statement in any of his interviews.

Pentin is also trying to tell us that even though Pope Benedict has made it crystal clear he wants nothing to do with Vigano and his allegations, that doesn't mean he didn't issue those "secret sanctions."

So what does Pope Benedict's statement mean, Ed?  Benedict is clearly and unmistakably saying that he will not dignify Vigano's allegations with any kind of remark to anyone at any time.  Why is Benedict divorcing himself so completely from these allegations?

The smell is so strong it is starting to invade the entire neighborhood.

Here is Ed's last statement in his response to Archbishop Gänswein:

The Register fully stands by its reporting, drawn on sources close to the Pope Emeritus, that sanctions were issued by Benedict against McCarrick.

Pentin has actually changed his story within the same article.  First Pentin told us it was "an inside source" who revealed the measures, er sanctions, taken against McCarrick.  Then in the very last sentence, he tells us it was "sources (plural) close to Pope Emeritus."  Which is it, Ed?  How many people actually talked to you?  Or maybe it really was a little birds close to Pope Benedict who whispered in your ear.

Benedict's personal secretary made it very clear that the Pope does not wish to talk to anyone about this matter, and that would most especially includes members of the press.  Yet, Pentin would have us believe that either an "inside source" or "sources close to the Pope Emeritus" (take your pick),  went against Benedict's wishes and spoke to the press.  And we are suppose to accept this as a credible source?

The source or sources, whichever it may be, have revealed him/her/themselves to be rats who care nothing for Pope Benedict, completely disregarding his clear intention that nothing be said in regard to the supposed "secret sanctions" against McCarrick.

And the Register "fully stands" by this reporting?

It is still important to investigate these claims. But I personally give Vigano's allegations no credibility. There are many other reasons why I doubt Vigano's veracity, but I will save that for another time.

Archbishop Vigano and the other enemies of Pope Francis have built a house of cards on shifting sand, and it is going to crumble into nothing.