More on Vigano

Facebook 0
Twitter
LinkedIn 0
Reddit 0
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon 0
WhatsApp
Email
Print

1.  One Peter Five has a story from journalist Aldo Maria Valli describing the background on how Archbishop Vigano came to draft his bombshell statement:

 

The heart of the matter is that Pope Francis also knew, according to Viganò. And yet he allowed McCarrick to circulate undisturbed, making a joke of the bans imposed on him by Benedict XVI. Francis knew at least since March 2013, when Viganò himself, responding to a question asked by the Pope during a face-to-face meeting, told him that in the Vatican there is a large dossier on McCarrick and he needs to read it.

With respect to our previous encounter, there is the new development of the findings which have emerged from the grand jury investigation in Pennsylvania, and Viganò confirms that the image created by the findings is correct. The sexual abuses constitute a phenomenon more extensive than anyone could imagine, and it is not correct to speak of pedophilia, because the overwhelming majority of cases deal with homosexual priests who go hunting for teenage young men. It is more correct, says the archbishop, to speak about ephebophilia, if anything. But the main point is that the web of complicity, silence, cover-up and reciprocal favors extends so far that there are no words to describe it, and it involves everyone at the highest levels, both in America and in Rome.

We sit there, once again, stunned. Because of my work we had a sense that there was some of this, but for Catholics like us, born and raised in the womb of Mother Church, it is truly difficult to swallow such a mouthful.

My question is thus the most naïve of all: “Why?”

And the response of the archbishop freezes my blood: “Because the cracks of which Paul VI spoke, from which he said the smoke of Satan would infiltrate the house of God, have become chasms. The devil is working overtime. And to not admit that, or to turn our face away from it, would be our greatest sin.”

I realize that we have not yet had a moment to speak alone face-to-face, as the archbishop had requested. He has spoken in front of everyone. I ask him if he would like go into another room with me, without my wife, daughters, and grandsons, but he says no, it’s okay just like this. It is understood that he is content as we are. For us it is a bit like listening to a grandfather tell us tales of far off worlds, and we so wish that at a certain point he would say that its all fiction. But instead, the world of which he is speaking is our world. He speaks of our Church. He speaks of our supreme pastors.

There remains basically only one question: Why is the archbishop telling us all this? What does he want from me?

This time, I ask him, and the response is that he has written a memoir in which he recounts all of the circumstances of which he has spoken. Including the meeting of June 23, 2013, with the Pope, when he, Viganò, informed Francis about the dossier on McCarrick.

And so?

“And so,” he says to me, “if you will permit me I would like to give you my memoir, which demonstrates that the Pope knew and that he did not act. And then you, after evaluating it, may decide whether to publish it or not on your blog, which is widely read. I want this to be known. I do not do this with a light heart, but I think it is the only way left to attempt a change, an authentic conversion.”

“I understand. Will you give it only to me?”

“No. I will give it to another Italian blogger, to one in England, to an American, to a Canadian. Translations will be made into English and Spanish.”

Go here to read the rest.

2.  Archbishop Vigano responds to criticisms of his handling of the Archbishop Nienstedt case:

The accusations date back to a 2016 New York Times report, alleging that, as U.S. Nuncio, Viganò “quashed” an independent investigation into sexual misconduct on the part of Archbishop John Nienstedt, who was found innocent by police authorities. 

The report specifically alleges that, during an April 2014 meeting at the Nunciature in Washington D.C., Viganò ordered two auxiliary bishops of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis to halt the investigation into Nienstedt. The report further alleges that Viganò “ordered church officials to destroy a letter they wrote to him protesting the decision.”

The New York Times based its report on a memorandum written by Father Dan Griffith, then-liaison to the lawyers conducting the inquiry, and delegate for the protection of minors in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis. Griffith wrote that the order to call off the investigation and destroy evidence amounted to “a good old fashioned cover-up to preserve power and avoid scandal,” the New York Times said.

These allegations against the former U.S. Nuncio have now resurfaced, and are being used to discredit or call into question the credibility of his testimony implicating Pope Francis and several senior prelates in the McCarrick abuse cover-up.

But in his two-page written statement, dated August 26, 2018 and published here below, Archbishop Viganò insists these accusations are “false,” presents his account of the events associated with the allegations, and provides convincing evidence, based on official documentation (including several letters here below), to prove his innocence. 

Vigano’s statement and the supporting documents also raise questions about why the Vatican has never publicly cleared his name.

What really happened?

In his written statement, Archbishop Viganò recounts that he met with Archbishop Neinstedt and two Auxiliary Bishops — Mons. Lee A. Piché and Mons. Andrew Cozzens — on April 12, 2014, at the apostolic nunciature in Washington, D.C., to discuss the ongoing investigation into the Archbishop. Father Griffith, he notes, was not present.

At that meeting, several affidavits were presented to him, one alleging that Nienstedt had “had an affair with a Swiss Guard during his service in the Vatican some twenty years prior.”

Viganò explains that “these affidavits were collected by the firm, Greene Espel, who was retained by Father Griffith on behalf of the Archdiocese to investigate Archbishop Nienstedt.” He adds that the firm “belongs to the group ‘Lawyers for All Families,’ who fought against Archbishop Nienstedt over the approval of same-sex marriage in the State of Minnesota.”

The former U.S. Nuncio then notes: “Private investigators from the Greene Espel firm had conducted an inquiry in an unbalanced and prosecutorial style, and now wanted immediately to extend their investigation to the Pontifical Swiss Guard, without first hearing Archbishop Nienstedt.”

According to Viganò, at a certain moment in the meeting, he suggested that the bishops “tell the Greene Espel lawyers that it appeared to me appropriate that Archbishop Nienstedt be heard before taking this step – audiatur et altera pars – which they had not yet done. The bishops accepted my suggestion,” he writes. 

After the meeting, Bishop Piché phoned Father Griffith from the airport, saying the meeting was positive, and there was promise of a good resolution on the horizon.

Despite this, the following morning, Archbishop Viganò says he received a letter at the Nunciature signed by the two Auxiliary Bishops, “falsely asserting” that he “had suggested the investigation be stopped.”

In comments to LifeSite, Viganò said that, immediately after reading the letter, he called Bishop Pichè and said: “What is this? I never said to stop the investigation. I proposed that it would be appropriate to first interrogate the Archbishop. Please remove the letter from the computer and from the archdiocesan archives.”

Go here to Lifesite News to read the rest.

3.  Vigano is currently in hiding, fearful for his life.  See this interview on EWTN with Edward Pentin:

 

4, Rod Dreher provides an English translation from a column of Vatican Journalist Marco Tossatti putting the pieces of the background of this story together:

Or, to explain it better, this man, who with his denunciation [of Bergoglio] has everything to lose and nothing to gain, formerly had the seal of papal approval at the time of Benedict XVI, who held him in high regard. Then [Secretary of State] Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone (the one who built himself a penthouse using money stolen from Bambino Gesù Hospital), saw fit to remove Viganò, sending him to the USA as nuncio. We do not need to use our imagination here to see that Providence follows very strange paths: because Bertone thought he would cut off the legs of one of his enemies in his Italian affairs, and yet without intending to he sent Viganò to the nation that would become, under Bergoglio’s pontificate, a key country for the exposure of evil within the Church.

Viganò was thus removed from his position, unbeknownst to the German Pope, who, surrounded by enemies and without practical power, resigned shortly thereafter, basically admitting that he was no longer able to carry out his mission: there were too many Judases surrounding him!

Meanwhile, the new boss, Bergoglio, while placing gay-minded men in key positions everywhere in Italy, from the aforementioned Dario Edoardo Viganò to Nunzio Galantino [made President of the Italian Bishops’ Conference by Bergoglio in 2013] to Vincenzo Paglia [made President of the Pontifical Academy for Life], at the same time launched a war without quarter against the American bishops for their crime of opposing the Obama administration’s pro-abortion and pro-gender-ideology agenda.

And thus Bergoglio isolated Cardinal Raymond Burke [removing him from the Congregation of Bishops] and sought to sideline the conservative American Cardinals Timothy Dolan and Daniel DiNardo, turning instead for a source of new cardinals to whom? To the serial abuser Cardinal McCarrick! One does not need to read the specific testimony of Carlo Maria Viganò to understand this: just scroll through the CVs of the Bergoglian Cardinals Wuerl, Cupich, Tobin, etc. Every single one is an intimate friend of McCarrick and every single one is someone close to the gay lobby!

Go here to read the rest.

More to explorer

Just in Time for Christmas

Well, President Trump certainly isn’t the first Republican President to be associated with a stuffed bruin:    

Not One Thin Dime

(This is a repost from 2014.  Nothing has changed in regard to the Catholic Campaign for Human Development and no faithful Catholic

Requiescat In Pace: Stan Lee

  Stanley Martin Lieber, better known as Stan Lee, passed away today at age 95.  A World War II veteran, Lee  worked

23 Comments

  1. This mornings Holy Rosary is being prayed for Vigano and our Holy Church.

    As if Dan Brown needed inspiration.
    He must be having a grand time with this revelation. New Novel in the works?
    Bet on it.

    Titles anyone?

  2. What did Wuerl have to do with the ‘gay lobby’? The rap on Wuerl has always been that he’s a soulless organization man. How did he get tagged as an ‘intimate friend’ of McCarrick. The one time they would have crossed paths (except at bishop’s conferences) was a Catholic University between 1958-63. Catholic University was a small school then. At the same time, the two were enrolled in different faculties and likely never took a class together.

  3. One curio: Wuerl supposedly took degrees at Catholic University in 1962 and 1963, but he does not appear in the yearbook for either class.

  4. It wasn’t clear to me from Vigano’s letter whether Benedict’s interdict imposed on McCarrick in 2009 was ever enforced, nor was it clear with whom enforcement would lie. Was McCarrick making public appearances in the Archdiocese of Washington during the period running from 2009 to 2013?

  5. 3. Vigano is currently in hiding, fearful for his life. See this interview on EWTN with Edward Pentin:

    One thing that’s concerned me right along is that Benedict has been holed up in the Vatican and his secretary doubles as prefect of the papal household.

  6. Pope Benedict has confirmed the sanctions.
    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-benedict-confirms-he-disciplined-mccarrick-sources-claim

    I rather suspect that they were a sign of papal displeasure and that McCarrick would have no official role to play in Benedict’s papacy, quite the reverse of McCarrick’s role under Francis. That McCarrick ignored Pope Benedict and still appeared at public events fits the pattern of Pope Benedict being a well meaning but weak Pope who told a visitor that his authority did not extend beyond the door to his office.

  7. Windswept House.

    Fascinating title. I imagine you read this work Mr. McClarey. (?)

    The book is not available on Amazon but our lending library at church is quite extensive…

  8. I don’t doubt that Benedict put him under interdict. Someone had to crack his head when he wouldn’t stay in his lane. Who fell down on that job?

  9. “I doubt if Benedict put in any mechanism of enforcement. Weak Pope.”
    I feel no need to argue this point; however I do believe it necessary to remind that for those on the more orthodox side of things humility and obedience have meaning. The orthodox tend to believe that when you give a just instruction to a subordinate they will submit.
    Fr. Pfleger hasn’t switched parishes because he lacks both of these qualities. Fr. Phillips exits quietly and prays for his flock. It has long been pointed out on this site and elsewhere that lefties always play by a different set of rules, both within the Church and elsewhere. As always the question remains when do we get fed up with this arrangement?

  10. “The orthodox tend to believe that when you give a just instruction to a subordinate they will submit.”

    That is a highly mistaken belief that can be disastrous for others. Christ told us to be as innocent as doves and as wily as serpents. Too many Christians completely forget about the wily part.

  11. Not sure what all the levers would have been. If it got back to him that McCarrick had defied his interdict, step two should have been to make it public and read in every parish in the BosWash corridor.

  12. Agreed Art. At least going forward avoiding scandal can’t be a reason for secrecy. Unless cannibalism is being engaged in, it is hard to see how things could get much more scandalous than they currently are.

  13. “The orthodox tend to believe that when you give a just instruction to a subordinate they will submit.”

    Yes, and when that subordinate does not, the superior needs to enforce it. Fine line between humility and weakness.

  14. C Matt, I was trying to point out that the orthodox tend to accept orders from superiors out of humility (Phillips, Vigano, Burke 2x etc). Perhaps some orthodox individuals expect their subordinates to act in a like manor. I didn’t reply to defend Benedict; I was merely pointing out a character flaw found in so many liberals.
    If people want to condemn Benedict as a weak pope; have at it. I don’t think that’s the main takeaway of the past three days.

  15. stumblingblock.org/?p=12596

    This is a daily news and views summary (found also at Canon 212, usually at the upper right column) that is ten minutes well spent.

  16. Art Deco – I listened to that piece about the laundry list of the small group of … insurgents … and noticed he forgot to add a few things like heresy, lack of adherence to scripture, tradition, and the magisterium which he and they are supposed to proclaim to the lost culture (due to poor catechesis), persecution of many faithful priests and laity, and that it’s his responsibility to teach the difference between good and evil according to God’s Word for the benefit of getting souls to Heaven. Maybe the small group of insurgents are named in the letter that has him spinning lists.

Comments are closed.