Support This Website! Shop Here!

Sunday, September 09, 2018

Philosophical Parasites and the Cuckoo's Egg

There are two kinds of philosophies in the world:
1) those that encourage adults to have children and
2) those that discourage adults from having children.

Any cultural group that follows the second philosophy will extinguish itself. If we consider these philosophies in total, it doesn't matter deeply what the pro-life philosophy is. It could be religious, e.g., Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Confucianist, Taoist. It could be economic, e.g., capitalist, socialist, communist, hunter-gatherer, whatever. It could be some philosophy based on experimental or formal science. It could even be a philosophy based on astrological symbols and homeopathy. Doesn't matter. All we care about is, does this philosophy encourage fertile adults to have and raise children?

Similarly, it doesn't matter deeply what the anti-life philosophy is. Again, it could be religious, economic, scientific, pagan. Doesn't matter. The question is, does this philosophy encourage fertile adults to avoid having children?

Natural growth cultures, if they are functioning correctly, naturally have the children necessary to carry on the next generation. Anti-life cultures naturally don't have any children. The only way they maintain themselves is by successfully converting (stealing) adults from the Natural Growth cultures.

Notice, it doesn't matter what the children think. Children, by definition, don't generate. Only adults generate. So, if children are raised in an anti-life philosophy, it doesn't matter. Only the adults matter. The adults - at some point during their fertile lives - will necessarily adopt one philosophy or the other. Converting children is a complete waste of time. Conversion of adults is the only thing that can effect outcomes. So, we might summarize these philosophical families this way:

Philosophy
Natural Growth
Culture flourishes unless adults abandon it
Cuckoo’s Egg
Culture must convert adults or die
Pro-life, encourages adults to have   children
X

Anti-child, discourages adults from having children

X


Now, Catholicism, and Christianity in general, has traditionally considered itself pro-life. We think of ourselves as an evangelical culture that grows by converting adults to Christian belief. Let's see how we have been doing for the last couple of centuries. TFR stands for Total Fertility Rate. It refers to the total number of children a fertile woman in the culture will have over the course of her lifetime.


So, we see that in the United States, Christianity has consistently failed to impart its ideas to the next generation of fertile adults. You can try to argue that we succeeded for 20 years out of the total 200 years in the chart, but that really doesn't work well. It means we failed for 180 years out of the total 200 on the chart. Worse, it is obvious the anti-child philosophy has been consistently successful in convincing fertile adults to follow an anti-child philosophy.

But that's just the United States.
How has the rest of the world done? Well, the numbers are clear.


The entire world has consistently lowered its TFR. Not a single culture anywhere in the world has not dropped its TFR over the course of the last 200 years. Not one. This victory of anti-life philosophies is called the "demographic transition." Over the last two centuries, pro-life philosophies have failed to win converts. Anti-life philosophies have consistently won the converts necessary to flourish. People who participate in the pro-life culture are having the children and raising them to adulthood. As adults, they are being converted to prefer not having children.

Obviously, this cannot continue. Insofar as every fertile adult adopts in anti-life philosophy, that adults DNA disappears from the gene pool, that adult's philosophy dies with him or her. The numbers indicate that the anti-life adults are, during their lifetimes, converting other fertile adults to their own philosophy at a much, much higher rate than any of the pro-life philosophies are. This is true even when the people pushing the anti-life philosophy show a marked contradiction between what they say they believe and what they actually do to live out their purported "beliefs".


How does this apply to Catholics?

Well, obviously, we have not previously nor are we now successfully evangelizing any modern culture. This is not a post-Vatican II problem. This is not even a post-Vatican I problem. This problem has existed since at least the dawn of industrialization. We have had this problem ever since industrialization started making us physically rich.

Christianity, and the world's other pro-life philosophies, do not know how to evangelize the modern, wealthy industrialized world. We were quite, quite good at evangelizing the world when it was mostly agricultural. We have had no success since it has become industrial and post-industrial. Quite the reverse, in fact. The modern industrial world has a very good idea of how to spread its anti-child gospel to successfully convince fertile adults that they should become extinct.

We obviously cannot yet answer their outlook or arguments because we obviously have not yet successfully answered those outlooks or arguments.

Everything we have tried in the last 200 years has failed.
The things they have tried in the last 200 years have succeeded.
We have God on our side, but we are losing.

That's worth pondering.

Saturday, September 08, 2018

Pope St. Pius X on the Papacy

Distracted with so many occupations, it is easy to forget the things that lead to perfection in priestly life; it is easy [for the priest] to delude himself and to believe that, by busying himself with the salvation of the souls of others, he consequently works for his own sanctification. Alas, let not this delusion lead you to error, because nemo dat quod nemo habet [no one gives what he does not have]; and, in order to sanctify others, it is necessary not to neglect any of the ways proposed for the sanctification of our own selves.

...

The Pope is the guardian of dogma and of morals; he is the custodian of the principles that make families sound, nations great, souls holy; he is the counsellor of princes and of peoples; he is the head under whom no one feels tyrannized because he represents God Himself; he is the supreme father who unites in himself all that may exist that is loving, tender, divine.

It seems incredible, and is even painful, that there be priests to whom this recommendation must be made, but we are regrettably in our age in this hard, unhappy, situation of having to tell priests: love the Pope!

And how must the Pope be loved? Non verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate. [Not in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth - 1 Jn iii, 18] When one loves a person, one tries to adhere in everything to his thoughts, to fulfill his will, to perform his wishes. And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, "si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit," [if any one love me, he will keep my word - Jn xiv, 23] therefore, in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey him.

Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey - that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.

This is the cry of a heart filled with pain, that with deep sadness I express, not for your sake, dear brothers, but to deplore, with you, the conduct of so many priests, who not only allow themselves to debate and criticize the wishes of the Pope, but are not embarrassed to reach shameless and blatant disobedience, with so much scandal for the good and with so great damage to souls.

Saint Pius X
Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union 
November 18, 1912


“Tradition? I am tradition!”

                   - Bl. Pope Pius IX 


Tuesday, September 04, 2018

The American Popes

I find it fascinating that Americans get very upset when the Pope makes a statement that applies to America's political situation ("separate Church and state!"), but consider themselves fully authorized to tell the Pope how to handle events in the Catholic Church.

American outrage over the abuse problem is especially ironic, given that those same Americans chose to make their last two top presidential candidates a choice between a woman who viciously covered up her husband's rapes vs a man credibly accused of rape by his own wife and thrilled to be endorsed by the convicted rapist, Mike Tyson.

Remarkably enough, even as they pontificate to the Pope about how to handle sexual abuse, most Americans still defend their chosen rape perpetrators as excellent choices to rule over them.

It's almost like Americans are hypocrites.
Imagine that.

Update:
Hey, look, yet another newspaper points out that Vigano is a damned liar.

Friday, August 31, 2018

Conversation With A Vigano Supporter

Him: The question remains did Pope Francis know McCormick was a serial molester when he brought him back into the fold? What say you about Danneels as well? No, while this doesn't make B16 look good, McCarrick was always independent. While he flouted sanctions, he was disinvited from all seminarian events, and Wuehrl even cancelled his meetings with seminarians, They all knew. And McCarrick never showed the Bishops conference B16 letter saying no communion for pro choice politicians - in fact misrepresented it. Guy was fearless and shameless. But Danneels . . . Cardinal Coccos orgy, the Hondurans, the Msgr Ricca debacle, the $25 million request from the Papal Foundation - let alone the confusion in doctrine - this has to end. Debacle.
Me: This is where the pro-Vigano people fail to understand what they are supporting.

If you want to believe Vigano, then you have to believe Pope Saint John Paul II, Benedict and Vigano himself are all guilty of malfeasance. There's no avoiding those conclusions.

You just want to focus on Pope Francis. But Vigano implicates himself and every Pope in the last forty years.

Vigano accuses the saint of the Church who STARTED the investigations into sexual abuse, he accuses the Pope who acted as that saint's watchdog in investigating the sexual abuse, and he accuses himself, the papal nuncio who claims to have instigated McCarrick's sanctions himself. If he is correct, all of them are guilty of gross malfeasance.
Him: No, that's not a fair reading - (1) it's clear McCarrick disregarded some (but not all) of the sanctions. There is a record of Uncle Ted being told not to attend seminarian events. (2) B16 famously told a reporter "my authority stops at that door"; (3) Viganos actions, while falling short, are not really the story - this is a pattern of rehabilitating abusers. It is a deflection to rebut one small part of this story and miss the elephant in the room. The Smoke of Satan has entered the Vatican.
Me: according to Vigano, Saint JP II was informed about McCarrick in the year 2000.

Read his charges.
That's what he says.

That saint elevated McCarrick to DC and the cardinalate in 2005.

HOW in the WORLD is JP II not grossly malfeasant for having done that?
Him: He is. Probably shouldn't be a saint based on a to of this. However, the PAYMENTS were made in 2006. Follow the money. That's where Pope Francis must resign. He used a known pederast to advise him on placing Cardinals, and unlike Vigano, who gave public platitudes b/c the payouts were private and under NDA, Francis relied on this pervert. Disgrace. It's Windswepthouse.
Me: OK, well, the declaration of sainthood is an exercise of the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium.

So, now you have just denied a dogma of the Church.
THAT is where supporting Vigano leads.

Bishops from around the world realize this.

When both Ave Maria University and National Catholic Reporter are on the same page about an event in the Church, the few Catholics who are on the other side of the debate should start to re-think their positions.

La Stampa journalists call Vigano's entire account into question

They have now produced a timeline showing how ridiculous Vigano's account is.

An additional conservative bishop support Pope Francis

UPDATE:

Just a reminder from canon law
Can.  1404 The First See is judged by no one.

Thursday, August 30, 2018

Silence and The Papal Dilemma

The major kicker in Vigano's accusations revolve around whether Pope Benedict put sanctions on McCarrick. Without that central accusation, Vigano has nothing.

By saying Benedict put sanctions on McCarrick, Vigano has essentially charged Pope Benedict with being weak and malfeasant. Think about this. Vigano has said Benedict imposed sanctions on America's leading prelate. But even Vigano can't seem to remember when these sanctions were imposed or what they comprised. Then he says McCarrick flouted the sanctions, and Benedict didn't do anything about it because Vigano himself, as America's papal nuncio, failed to inform Benedict.

Saying you can't remember much about the sanctions placed on the Cardinal who ran Washington DC is like saying, "Yeah, I lived through that experience in New York when those terrorists blew up the WTC. The smoke and ash were horrific. But I don't remember exactly what day it happened. Heck, I don't even remember exactly what year it happened. I am also not sure exactly what happened. How many planes, and how many towers fell and who actually made them fall .... I'm kind of fuzzy on all that."

Saying you were America's papal nuncio when an American cardinal flouted papal sanctions is like adding, "But I was THERE! I was a member of Air Defense Patrol that day! I knew it was going to happen, I warned everyone several years before, but I kept absolutely silent on the day of the event and during the days leading up to it!"

And blaming Pope Francis simply adds, "This WTC terrorist disaster was all Donald Trump's fault!"

Yeah. That's a good look for both Benedict and Vigano. Vigano accuses JP II, Benedict and himself of malfeasance and then insists the situation is all Pope Francis' fault. Amazingly enough, people actually buy this.

And what, exactly, is Benedict supposed to say? Benedict can't afford to make a public statement one way or the other.

If Benedict says he did impose sanctions, he makes himself look weak and his successor look bad, which harms the office of the papacy. If he admits he didn't, then HE looks bad, which harms the office of the papacy.

Likewise, Francis won't allow Benedict to state that Benedict did not issue sanctions. If Benedict did NOT impose sanctions, then Benedict looks malfeasant, which Pope Francis simply will not allow. The two are friends, Francis won't permit Benedict to sacrifice himself that way. If Benedict DID impose sanctions, than McCarrick clearly flouted them prior to Francis taking office, and that makes Benedict and the papacy look weak, which Francis can't allow either.

Here is the irony: if Vigano's account is correct, then JP II, Benedict and Vigano himself were all malfeasant. But none of them are being attacked.

And further irony: as far as anyone can confirm, Pope Francis is the only person who DID impose sanctions on McCarrick. He is also the only person who is being attacked.

Neither the Pope Emeritus nor the Pope himself can afford to respond to these charges at all. They have to just hope that the people paying attention to the timeline put the pieces together and realize that Vigano is lying. On Vigano's part, he has intentionally posed a dilemma which will deeply undermine the papacy and the Catholic Church for years to come. Remarkably enough, Catholics throughout the United States are getting in touch with their inner Protestant and backing Vigano's play.

Sad times.

UPDATE: 
Dawn Eden has done yeoman's work in creating a timeline that calls Vigano's actions in Minnesota into question. Her timelines shows that Vigano's apologia in LifeSiteNews is deeply problematic.

UPDATE 2:
You know, when you think about the Vigano-Benedict-McCarrick situation, Vigano's charges should actually clear Pope Francis of all blame. Think about it. Vigano claims (while still living in Rome, no less) to have been the watchdog who goaded Benedict into imposing sanctions on McCarrick. Benedict supposedly imposed the sanctions, then appoints Vigano America's papal nuncio. While living in America, McCarrick supposedly flouted these sanctions.

Everyone knows Ratzinger was JP II's enforcer on the sexual abuse scandal. Vigano claims to be the enforcer on McCarrick. If neither Bulldog Vigano NOR JP II's bulldog on sexual abuse, Ratzinger, were willing to enforce sanctions, or even keep one another informed about the sanctions, then why WOULD Pope Francis think the sanctions were important? The whole sanction bit is so nebulous, Vigano apparently isn't even sure what year the sanctions were imposed.

What...The...Flick? How can the man who goaded the Pope into sanctioning America's leading prelate over sex abuse charges forget the details of his victory? It isn't like this happens every day. This is HUGE! But, if you listen to the pro-Vigano crowd, neither Pope Benedict nor Vigano himself can even remember what year the sanctions were imposed, much less any of the details. Seriously?

SERIOUSLY??!?!?!

If Pope Benedict communicates that well with the papal nuncio who is supposed to oversee the American prelate he sanctioned, one can only imagine how much fun Pope Francis had trying to get any information out of Benedict. And how could anyone take seriously sanctions so poorly formulated and enforced that neither of the men responsible for their imposition can remember anything about them?

UPDATE 3:
From EWTN, one of Pope Francis' main persecutors at the moment:

"The present Code of Canon Law includes three such censures: excommunication (c. 1331), interdict (c. 1332), and suspension (c. 1333)....

Father Beal proposed that censures are unlikely to be effective punishments for priest abusers.

He explained: "Since they can only be imposed after a warning, there must be evidence of an incident of abuse or at least suspicion that a particular cleric is prone to such abuse before a censure can even be threatened. Sad experience of the recent past suggests that even the sternest warnings and threats are unlikely to be effective in deterring abusive clerics from repeating their offenses. Even when a censure has been imposed, it must be remitted once the offender evidences repentance — and, as many bishops have learned to their chagrin, sexually abusive clergy can make very convincing displays of repentance when they are confronted with evidence of their offenses."" (emphasis added)


Wednesday, August 29, 2018

Da Vigano Code

If what Vigano says is true, then Pope Saint John Paul II was told of McCarrick's issues in 2000, but elevated McCarrick to DC and the cardinalate in 2005. This was at the same time that Benedict was in charge of ferreting out child abuse as head of the CDF.

When Benedict took the throne, he had just spent years ferreting out child abuse throughout the world, especially in the US, where the scandal started. He presumably would have known about McCarrick, yet Benedict allowed McCarrick to stay on for nine months past his retirement age of 75. Vigano says he warned the Vatican about McCarrick in 2006 and 2008, but Benedict - who would have known about McCarrick for at least a decade at this point, only places restrictions on McCarrick in 2009 or 2010 - that no one can seem to remember which year is itself absolutely remarkable. And why would Benedict, who was the point man on investigating sexual abuse in America under JP II, permit the sanctioned McCarrick to move to the grounds of the Institute of the Incarnate Word (IVE) seminary, an institution whose founder was himself convicted of sexual abuse and removed from that same seminary?  If true, this is absolutely gross malfeasance on Benedict's part, and completely out of character with how he handled sex abuse cases when he was JP II's watchdog.

Vigano gets appointed America's papal nuncio in 2011. By this time, McCarrick was supposedly flouting Benedict's one-year old sanctions (or was it two-year old sanctions??). This disobedience was, according to Vigano, being hidden by other prelates. But if McCarrick was flouting Benedict's sanctions in 2011 or later, then Vigano - as America's papal nuncio - could easily have gotten a private audience and informed Benedict himself about the misbehaviour of an American prelate. Given Vigano's uniquely powerful position, there would be absolutely no way for other prelates to hide McCarrick's disregard for Benedicts fabled sanctions. Vigano would have been there, right?

But Vigano apparently wasn't there. He never bothered to get that audience with Pope Benedict to inform the Pope about McCarrick's disobedience. This is really odd, given that Vigano insists it was his memo in 2008 that got Benedict to act in 2009 (or was it 2010?).  No, instead of warning the Pope about McCarrick's residence and activities, Vigano, as papal nuncio, gets himself involved in questionable behaviour concerning the alleged sexual abuse by Nienstadt in Minnesota. Dawn Eden has done yeoman's work in showing Vigano's explanation of Minnesota simply doesn't work.

So, let's recap. According to Vigano, Pope Saint John Paul II was criminally malfeasant. Sure, he sent the future Pope Benedict after every sexual abuser in the United States, but JP II not only left McCarrick alone, he elevated the man to DC and the cardinalate. When his chief investigator, Ratzinger, becomes Pope Benedict, Ratzinger-Benedict inexplicably leaves McCarrick in the most powerful position in the American church for months past McCarrick's retirement, then allows McCarrick to retire to a seminary with extremely well-known past problems of sexual abuse. Benedict, at Vigano's urging, then imposes penalties on McCarrick, and appoints Vigano to be America's papal nuncio. One would think Vigano could keep a weather eye on McCarrick from that perch, but Vigano inexplicably neglects to inform the Pope about the malfeasance of the American prelate that Vigano himself had urged sanctions upon just a dozen (or was it two dozen?) months prior.

Now, the only person who says Benedict imposed sanctions is Vigano. Vigano essentially claims Benedict waited for YEARS before doing it. And no one, not even Benedict (according to the pro-Vigano National Catholic Register reporter claiming sources close to the Pope Emeritus) can remember exactly what those sanctions were! Imagine that! The Pope imposes sanctions on America's leading prelate during the height of the sexual abuse crisis and can't remember what the sanctions were!

In fact, Vigano apparently didn't even remember the sanctions while he was papal nuncio. La Stampa reports:
 "And even ViganĂ² himself, in the meantime removed from the Vatican by decision of Benedict XVI who “promotes him nuncio to Washington, does not appear at all worried about the situation. His participation in public events with the harassing cardinal is documented, such as concelebrations in the United States or the attribution of an award to McCarrick (on 2 May 2012, Pierre Hotel in Manhattan), a ceremony during which ViganĂ² appears anything but indignant or embarrassed to be photographed alongside the old cardinal harasser. "

Nor did Vigano have a problem with praising the "sanctioned" cardinal at an awards dinner: Wow - handing out awards, concelebrating Mass with a known abuser.... those were certainly some nasty sanctions the papal nuncio was enforcing on behalf of Pope Benedict, eh?

If Vigano is correct, then Pope Saint John Paul II was complicit in elevating McCarrick, Pope Benedict was complicit in waiting years before sanctioning McCarrick, and Vigano was complicit in failing to notify Pope Benedict that not only was McCarrick flouting sanctions, he, Vigano, was helping McCarrick flout the sanctions.

Now National Catholic Register would have us believe that Pope Benedict can't remember the precise nature of the sanctions he imposed on America's leading prelate during the height of the sex abuse scandal investigation that he himself had led.

Nothing in that timeline makes any sense.

In fact, we only KNOW of one person who imposed sanctions on McCarrick: Pope Francis. And, oddly enough, within two months of doing it, Pope Francis is the only person everyone is attacking.

It sure looks like a mafia hit on Pope Francis.
And NCR sure looks like it wants its hands in any papal blood that is spilled.
These certainly are remarkable times.

Sunday, August 26, 2018

Vigano's Vinegar

Vinegar is wine gone bad, the drink Christ was given as He hung on the Cross. Now we have a papal nuncio named Vigano who is saying some extremely nasty things about Pope Francis. What is going on?

I have not worked in the Vatican, and I am currently far removed from the rumor mills of the chancery offices. However, I have worked in a chancery office, and I have worked for three different bishops. I have a small inkling of how politics is played in the Catholic Church. The first and foremost rule you must learn is the rule of romanita:
Romanita, that particular brand of power is called. It is axiomatic that any Pope who hopes to succeed must be at least two things: iron-willed, and skilled in romanita. Roznanita rests upon one basic principle: Cunctando regitur mundus. If you can outwait all, you can rule all. The hallmark of romanita is understatement in action and in all forms of expression. It is, in a way, power in whispers. Essential to it are a sense of timing reamed with patience, a ruthlessness that excludes the hesitation of emotions, and an almost messianic conviction of ultimate success. Few are born with it. Most genuine "Romans" who flourish must learn it over time. 
 All chancery offices, all ordained men, operate on this principle. Quiet patience is not just a virtue, but a necessity. No one offers himself up as a target, rather, the wise man provides some stalking horse, some paper cut-out, to take whatever hits are necessary.

If Vigano, a former papal nuncio, is speaking out, he is speaking out in order to advance someone else's agenda. Ordained men, especially a papal nuncio who undoubtedly got his position precisely because he is skilled in romanita, do not speak out as Vigano has unless that man has very powerful protection. Never.

So, by the very fact that we hear his voice, we know Vigano is not the man who came up with the idea to speak out and we know that there is a hidden agenda to speaking out. This is especially true if the ordained man vociferously denies he has any agenda, as Vigano has already denied it.

What is that agenda?  Look at what he says. Vigano is careful to absolve both Pope Saint John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict of all blame. This is directly at odds with the rest of his message.

After all, Vigano claims Pope Saint John Paul II was apprised of McCarrick's problems in 2000. But JP II was precisely the man who elevated McCarrick to New Jersey (1986), Washington DC (Nov, 2000) and the cardinalate (Feb 2001).  According to Vigano's timeline, a saint of the Church put McCarrick into the most powerful position in the American church, Washington DC, just weeks after being told McCarrick was a homosexual abuser. Keep in mind, this is the same saint JP II who took years to deal with Maciel and the Legion of Christ scandal in the 1990s, but Vigano mentions none of this.

From the timelines, we know Pope Benedict followed JP II's example. After all, Benedict was elected April 2005, but didn't accept McCarrick's resignation (May 16, 2006) until McCarrick was almost 76  (he was born July 7, 1930), that is, almost a year longer than the customary retirement age of 75. Vigano claims Benedict put restrictions on McCarrick, and is thus not to blame. But, since Benedict was the head of the CDF, wouldn't Benedict have been just as much at fault for allowing McCarrick to continue in his post for another year? And McCarrick was known to have retired to the Institute of the Incarnate Word (IVE), during Benedict's pontificate. IVE not only had a seminary on the grounds, the founder of IVE was a known homosexual abuser who was actually forbidden by Rome from associating with his own organization. Obviously, all of this would have been known to Benedict.

But Vigano barely mentions either Pope Saint JP II or Pope Benedict. In fact, Vigano holds up Pope Benedict - the Pope who resigned precisely because he felt he could not handle the homosexual cabal in the Vatican - as a shining example.  Vigano lauds Benedict's (in)action and pours all of his venom out on the head of Pope Francis, the one man who clearly DID put restrictions on McCarrick. You see, as of 20 June 2018, Cardinal McCarrick was removed from public ministry by the Holy See after a review board of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York found an allegation "credible and substantiated" that he had sexually abused a 16-year-old altar boy while a priest in New York

Vigano, who is conveniently retired, and thus nearly untouchable, decides to step forward and attack Pope Francis scant weeks after McCarrick is publicly humiliated.

Hmmmm....

This is classic romanita, folks. If the romanita script is being followed, then Vigano is McCarrick's stalking horse, put up to the task of tearing down the Pope for daring to publicly humiliate Cardinal Theodore McCarrick by either McCarrick supporters or McCarrick himself.

Don't buy into this caca.


UPDATE:
It is as I thought. Source:
Regardless of the truth of his claims, Vigano needs to explain his own reported complicity in covering up sexual wrongdoing by a brother bishop.  After all, this is the very accusation he is making against Francis.  In 2014, Vigano ordered a shut-down of an investigation of alleged sexual wrongdoing by Archbishop John Nienstedt of St. Paul and Minneapolis archdiocese, according to an internal memo made public by local prosecutors.
And Michael Sean Winter is also calling foul on Vigano.
During the Benedict papacy, with my own eyes I witnessed McCarrick celebrate Mass in public, participate in meetings, travel, etc. More importantly, so did Pope Benedict! If Benedict imposed these penalties, he certainly did not apply them. He continued to receive McCarrick with the rest of the Papal Foundation, continued to allow him to celebrate Mass publicly at the Vatican, even concelebrating with Benedict at events like consistories. (See photo above taken in 2010.) But, as Vigano tell is, it is all Pope Francis’ fault.
...  When the Argentine bishops, under the leadership of then-Cardinal Bergoglio, refused to ordain the Incarnate Word seminarians, McCarrick stepped in to do it. 
Current speculation says Cardinal Burke is using Vigano as a mouthpiece to strike back at Pope Francis. The reasons are easy to identify:
And, under the current nuncio, Archbishop Vigano, there was a series of major appointments in the latter years of the reign of Pope Benedict XVI, when Cardinals Burke and Justin Rigali were on the Congregation for Bishops, that set the culture warrior stamp on the U.S. Church. Only when Pope Francis removed both +Burke and +Rigali from that Congregation, replacing them with Cardinal Donald Wuerl, did the appointment of culture warriors to major archdioceses cease, most obviously in the appointment of +BlaseCupich to the archdiocese of Chicago.
Vigano is a damned liar, trying to take down Pope Francis for personal reasons, and he doesn't mind if the Church breaks apart as a result, since he and Burke are counting on people blaming Pope Francis instead of them.

This is Lefebvre all over again. Burke won't stop until he schisms the Church or dies trying. Using Vigano this way demonstrates that in spades.

P.S. Oh, and why is EWTN's Raymond Arroyo so negative on Pope Francis? Well, both EWTN and National Catholic Register have always had close ties to the Legion of Christ and Regnum Christi, the groups founded by infamous child abuser Fr. Maciel. In fact, EWTN had a long-standing Q&A forum with LC priests answering questions, while NCR was originally entirely owned by the Legion. Remember, Fr. Benedict Groeschel, a member of the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal and a long-time star of EWTN's line-up, was on the board of the Legion’s Institute for the Psychological Sciences in Arlington, VA. So, yeah, there's history there was well.

UPDATE II
Oh, this just keeps getting richer. Now DiNardo is publicly defending Vigano, the man who covered up a sex abuse case in Minnesota. By purest coincidence, SNAP has long since named DiNardo (and Mahoney) as part of the "Dirty Dozen" - the nation's WORST bishops in handling sex abuse cases.

So, we are supposed to take the word of two men who are known to have covered up sex abuse, as they question the competence of the Holy Father. Yeah, who wouldn't be on-board for that?

UPDATE IV
From John Paul Shimek:
Things to remember...

Vigano has participated in the Rome Life Forum, which has ties to Burke. Also, Vigano released his 11-page document at an important moment: i.e., at the conclusion of Pope Francis' World Meeting of Families, which Burke had been trying to undermine with his own shadow meeting of families. Lastly, the Missouri Attorney General was about to investigate Burke's former diocese of St. Louis. This bit of news offers Burke some deflection and cover.

N.B. In the linked picture, Vigano stands between Burke and LifeSiteNews' John Henry Westin. Westin's rag website has been notoriously anti-Catholic for the last several years.