DUBLIN — A former Vatican ambassador to the United States has alleged in an 11-page letter that Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis — among other top Catholic Church officials — had been aware of sexual misconduct allegations against former D.C. archbishop Cardinal Theodore McCarrick years before he resigned this summer.
The letter from Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, who was recalled from his D.C. post in 2016 amid allegations that he’d become embroiled in the conservative American fight against same-sex marriage, was first reported by the National Catholic Register and LifeSite News, two conservative Catholic sites. The letter offered no proof, and Viganò on Sunday told The Washington Post he wouldn’t comment further.
I don't yet have much to say about the above, but it appears (from what I see from a few very conservative Catholics commenting on another site) that some are already rushing to judgment and condemning Pope Francis based solely on Archbishop Viganò's statement.
ReplyDeleteCoincidentally I just finished reading this article about Vigano's accusations on the NCR site.
ReplyDeleteFrom that article:
"Archbishop Carlo Vigano, who served as the Holy See's chief diplomat in the U.S. capital from 2011-2016, also claims that Pope Benedict XVI had placed unannounced sanctions on McCarrick, barring him from celebrating Mass publicly or traveling, and ordering him to a life of prayer and penance.
"Although the Vatican press office said it would have "no immediate comment" on the letter, released by National Catholic Register and LifeSiteNews early Aug. 26, at least several of its claims appear contradicted by the historical record."
"McCarrick, for example, was seen celebrating numerous public Masses throughout Benedict's papacy and continued traveling around the world until the announcement in June that the Vatican had ordered his removal from ministry over an accusation of abuse that had been deemed credible."
Vigano accuses Pope Francis of ignoring the sanctions imposed by Benedict. Except that Benedict would have had no problem imposing them publicly; and in fact that is the only way they could have been imposed on someone in McCarrick's position.
I remember Vigano as the one who had a role in setting up the whole Kim Davis thing when Francis visited the US. The man seems driven by an ideological agenda, and a grudge. The fact that the letter from Vigano was first published in LifeSite News and National Catholic Register says a lot.
And this is also from the NCR article:
Delete"Vigano himself has also been accused of covering up sexual misconduct...Three months after his departure from Washington, a 2014 memo he had written ordering the quashing of an investigation into alleged homosexual activity on the part of now former St. Paul-Minneapolis Archbishop John Nienstedt was made public at the conclusion of a criminal investigation...Vigano had also ordered the destruction of a piece of evidence. Nienstedt resigned from his post in 2015."
Francis has invited journalists and us to read the document, and then judge for ourselves. The document is available as at the Whispers in the Loggia website (perhaps David might link it above).
ReplyDeleteI have read the document, and understand why Francis takes the Curia to the woodshed each Christmas. A major theme is always infighting and gossip. I am sure he has to listen to many diatribes like this one listening all that is wrong with the other cardinals with whom they disagree. He probably has great difficulty in sorting out the wheat from the chaff.
I suspect Francis learned about McCarrick when Benedict gave him the results of the investigation into leaks in the Vatican. A homosexual network was uncovered. Did Benedict do anything or did he leave it to his successor, perhaps with recommendations. Francis is a sophisticated person about church politics and about ruining opponents, and gay networks. I am sure he decided to bide his time.
But I also think he knew that he would eventually have to face the sexual abuse issue, and the role of gays.
I think he understood well what he was doing when he said "who am I to judge" about another nuncio accused of gay behavior. I think he was preparing us to deal with gay networks in the church.
Vigano reports "He (Francis) immediately assailed me with a tone of reproach, using these words: “The Bishops in the United States must not be ideologized! They must be shepherds!”
In a later conversation Francis elaborates And the Pope, in a very different, friendly, almost affectionate tone, said to me: “Yes, the Bishops in the United States must not be ideologized, they must not be right-wing like the Archbishop of Philadelphia, (the Pope did not give me the name of the Archbishop) they must be shepherds; and they must not be left-wing — and he added, raising both arms — and when I say left-wing I mean homosexual.” Of course, the logic of the correlation between being left-wing and being homosexual escaped me, but I added nothing else.
Then Vigano continues: Immediately after, the Pope asked me in a deceitful way: “What is Cardinal McCarrick like?” I answered him with complete frankness and, if you want, with great naiveté: “Holy Father, I don’t know if you know Cardinal McCarrick, but if you ask the Congregation for Bishops there is a dossier this thick about him. He corrupted generations of seminarians and priests and Pope Benedict ordered him to withdraw to a life of prayer and penance.” The Pope did not make the slightest comment about those very grave words of mine and did not show any expression of surprise on his face, as if he had already known the matter for some time, and he immediately changed the subject. But then, what was the Pope’s purpose in asking me that question: “What is Cardinal McCarrick like?” He clearly wanted to find out if I was an ally of McCarrick or not.
If you read the whole thing, Vigano is clearly on one side of a culture war. He was really trying to get Francis to take sides. But of course this is the game that is constantly played in the Vatican and various officials never really being honest about their agenda.
I applaud Francis for his move against ideological warfare, and wanting to keep the bishops out of it.
Here is a link to Vigano's "testimony" as provided by Rocco Palmo.
ReplyDeleteI had planned on adding some links to comments on the "testimony," but there is such an explosion of it that it doesn't appear practical. There seems to be a very strong element of "homophobia" in much of what comes from the Catholic extreme right, which is not to say that all such allegations are groundless. Michael Voris uses the term homo-heritics, and one Catholic website I happened across referred to Rocco Palmo's site as "Lispers in the Logia."
In the good, old Church Vigano is trying to return to, a letter like his would have led to his corpse floating in the Tiber.
ReplyDeleteI've already given him more attention than I knew he deserved when I saw the select recipients of his letter. When someone has something important truthful to announce, he announces it to everybody. When he doesn't want to be questioned too closely, he releases it to "friendly" sources who won't question him.
A real newspaper (h/t to Cardinal Cupich for his h/t to journalists in the letter Deacon Jim references) would ask, "Who is this guy? Has he a record for defending victims? Is he grinding an ax against Francis? How can we flesh him out?" A party paper just says, "He's an official, and he agrees with us. Get his story out there."
When I saw how Vigano handled his problem I knew its credibility would be a little less than zero.
No, wait! One more thing: Vagano and his fellow coup plotters had nothing but praise for St. John Paul all the time he was presiding over the de-Christianization of Europe. Today's Gospel (Matt. 21: 13-22) is apposite.
ReplyDeleteI haven't read the report, just going on what I've read about it.
ReplyDeleteFirst, Vigano is not exactly trustworthy. That stunt he pulled with Kim Davis during Francis' visit to the US was classic.
He claims that Benedict disciplined McCarrick, yet McCarrick was seen at many events, seen celebrating mass etc after this penance had allegedly been ordered.
Looking at the timeline of McCarrick's abuse of seminarians, and the timeline for when people reported it to Rome, it is clear that both John Paul II and Benedict knew - or should have known - about his behaviour. Yet he was promoted to bishop, archbishop, and cardinal during their times in office.
Francis may have known and decided that since McCarrick was so old, he would let sleeping dogs lie. Unfortunately, when it comes to sexual abuse, Francis has been a huge disappointment. He still refuses to say that he will set up some kind of tribunal or other official structure to handle cases of bishops protecting abusers.
So, assuming Francis did know (as did JPII and Benedict), this move is clearly meant to try to complete the right-wing Catholic revolution and overthrow the pope.
RE John Paul II presiding over the dechristianization of Europe. The data show that the exodus from religious life, both men and women, started growing during the 1970s. However, the numbers of departures of priests and women religious, and the fall in numbers of new seminarians, accelerated after JPII was elected in 1978, and continued to decline rapidly all the way up until the early 2000s, when it leveled off. Obviously their attempts to turn back Vatican II reforms and return the church to a pre-Vatican II mindset failed dismally, with tens of millions of Catholics leaving active participation in the US, as well as in Europe.
I am not sure what to make of this, except that Vigano seems troubled. I haven't had time yet to read through the letter, but my take is that not everything he claims is immediately discountable as a bald-face lie or raving lunacy. Journalists are going to have to pursue this story. t
ReplyDeleteTo me it seems like a mash-up of truths, half truths, supositions, and fabrications. As you say, not everything he says is immediately discountable. The problem is sorting it all out. As Crdl. Cupich said, it needs to be vetted. Vigano seems like a disgruntled employee who believes he wasn't properly appreciated. Maybe he wasn't.
DeleteSomeone asked Francis if the report was true. He said to let journalists do their work. Sorry, but how hard is it to say yes or no?
ReplyDeleteWith eleven pages it's likely some of both.
DeleteDid he know about McCarrick or not? And, if yes, did he call the cops? I don't think that's a hard question to answer.
DeleteHe removed McCarrick over the abuse of minors. The question is, when did he know about that?
DeleteIf we believe what we read, McCarrick's abusive behavior has been known in some circles for many years now - certainly among seminarians and former seminarians from the dioceses he led. And it's been reported that a delegation of concerned Americans went to Rome to warn Rome about him when it became publicly known that he was being considered for the Washington DC seat. If that's true, then some people in Rome must have received that report.
DeleteBut not that these allegations were not about the abuse of minors (the seminarians were not minors). From what we know, abuse of minors didn't get reported until relatively recently - and then (we hope) the NY independent review board did its job in a timely fashion.
The point is, there are other forms of abuse, and clergy of any rank shouldn't abuse anyone of any age. I suppose that what McCarrick did to those young men qualifies as sexual assault. It would have been wonderful had any of them had the courage and self-awareness to report that assault to the police, but I suppose that predators don't select victims who are likely to stand up for themselves and fight back.
What I don't get are the supposed sanctions Benedict placed on McCarrick in private. What purpose do private sanctions serve? And if the sanctions were indeed in place, then McCarrick flouted them pretty brazenly. Wouldn't this be the signal to your boss that all bets were off, private would now be public?
ReplyDeleteKatherine - the "private sanctions" claim is definitely being questioned. Cardinal Keith O'Brien is the counter-example: he was publicly sanctioned by Benedict. But O'Brien was allowed to retain his status as cardinal without the right to actually exercise the office. So Benedict seemed to have a thing about allowing miscreant cardinals to retain some shreds of dignity. That may be why Benedict would have made McCarrick's punishment private (or so the speculation goes).
DeleteIt's also argued that Benedict lacked the gumption or energy to rein in the inmates who started running the asylum while he was pope. I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing, just reporting the theory.
Jim, why would Benedict publicly sanction O'Brien but keep the sanctioning of McCarrick secret? They were guilty of the same things.
ReplyDeleteIt makes little sense.
Benedict knew what was happening. It was reported as early as John Paul II's watch. But Benedict also protected priests who molested kids, with the worst example being the priest who molested the kids in the boarding school for deaf boys in the midwest. JPII was so unashamedly on the "side" or the priests after the Globe story broke it was a travesty of what church is supposed to be. He was all about clericalism.
When Francis became pope, there were stories out there that he had also protected priests when he was a younger bishop in Argentina, or maybe when he was head of the Jesuits. The details are fuzzy now, but there was a lot written about it. I doubt there is a bishop or higher cleric out there who has totally clean hands.
O'Brien sexually harassed seminarians and young priests, just as McCarrick did. It seems doubtful that Francis knew about the charge of molesting minors, but he probably did know about the other. McCarrick was already retired for several years by the time Francis became pope. He probably didn't want to stir the pot.
I have a (conspiracy) theory. The "conservatives" in the church have hated Francis since the moment he broke tradition by stepping out on the balcony without all the expected regalia. Then he asked the people for their blessing. Then he moved into the apartment building where the workers live instead of the papal apartments. He totally blasted the Curia in his talk in Dec 2014. For those who have forgotten what he said you can find it at the following link
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/22/pope-francis-scathing-critique-vatican-officials-curia-speech
He made it clear that he was going to try to reduce or eliminate the trappings of wealth of the imperial church - striking right at the heart of what most cardinals and bishops think is their due. The cardinals fancy themselves "princes", after all. Burke and his buddies relish the rings, the bowing and scraping, the yards long cappa magnas. They really see themselves as some kind of royalty. They are the extreme, but one finds the same attitude prevails with many bishops. Maybe not 40' long silk trains, but they do like their expensive lifestyles. Cars with drivers, dinners at the finest restaurants, luxury housing with a full staff of servants, luxury retirement housing. Wuerl actually lives in simple housing. I'm still giving him the benefit of the doubt, but the more I read about what he did in Pittsburg, the more concerns I have.
Then Francis started showing he wanted to cool down on the culture wars, to make the church a church of the poor, of those on the margins.
Heresy!
It has been clear for several years now that the right-wing of the church wanted a regime change. They see this as their chance to force him out. A coup.
Anne, I'm really praying they don't force him out. Because who knows what we will get next time.
DeleteI'm sure you are right that many of them like their privileges way too much. But I think more than that it is a worship of tradition rather than God.
Anne - I don't know why Benedict might treat O'Brien one way and McCarrick another way. Here is a piece that tries to make sense of it all. Take it for what it's worth. All of these are exercises in speculation with very little to support them by way of facts and evidence.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/08/what-francis-knew
Re: Francis's early days in Argentina: I am not sure what you may have in mind, but the most widespread (and controversial) accusations about him from his days as a young Jesuit provincial is that he failed to protect Jesuit priests for whom he was responsible from Argentine death squads.
I suppose conservative churchmen (of which I don't consider myself one) dislike Francis mostly because he's liberal. If we want to name specific reasons, he's pretty openly hostile to a free market economy. And he's considered squishy on doctrine (again, reporting here, not accusing). Some liberals think he's disliked by conservatives because he's also squishy on gay rights, and maybe there is some truth to that (it seems to be one of Vigano's obsessions, at any rate). And it seems that from time to time he's been known to help his friends and punish his enemies - he's not always above the fray when it comes to church politics.
Well, the story keeps moving right along. This report from Joshua McElwee is fascinating.
ReplyDeleteNational Catholic Register, one of two outlets that originally published Viganò's letter, wrote in an Aug. 25 story on its contents that the publication had "independently confirmed that the allegations against McCarrick were certainly known to Benedict."
The New York Times reported Aug. 28 that one of the people Viganò consulted with while writing his statement was U.S. lawyer Timothy Busch, who is on the board of governors of EWTN, which owns the Register.
Busch told the Times that editors at the Register "had personally assured him that the former pope, Benedict XVI, had confirmed Archbishop Viganò’s account."
In his interview Aug. 28, Gänswein said that that any reports that Benedict had confirmed parts of Viganò's statement "lack any foundation."
https://www.ncronline.org/news/accountability/benedicts-secretary-reports-ex-pope-confirmed-viganos-letter-fake-news
OK, you are right, Jim. The criticism was about the "dirty war". He was not accused of any cover-ups himself.
ReplyDeleteOne story from 2013
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/pope-francis-was-often-quiet-on-argentine-sex-abuse-cases-as-archbishop/2013/03/18/26e7eca4-8ff6-11e2-9cfd-36d6c9b5d7ad_story.html?utm_term=.deedf7996276