Support This Website! Shop Here!

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 Viganò 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 Viganò 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.

6 comments:

Confitebor said...

"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."

Vigano is almost certainly correct -- and you are correct about the implications.

Let that sink in, Mr. Kellmeyer, and then you might begin to understand why so many Catholics have had it with Pope Francis and this corrupt bench of bishops. Our popes and bishops are called to be shepherds, but far too many (most) are wolves and hirelings.

Confitebor said...

Viganó doubles down: McCarrick was restricted under Benedict, but ‘he didn’t obey’

August 31, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – . . . .

The former papal nuncio to the U.S. responded to efforts in the media to question his testimony that Pope Francis covered-up for McCarrick while knowing of his reputation for sexual abuse of seminarians and priests. Viganó reiterated in the interview that he had spoken with McCarrick about the restrictions Benedict had put upon him, but that as nuncio he did not have authority to enforce those restrictions.

“I was not in the position of enforcing,” Viganó told LifeSiteNews, “especially because the measures (sanctions) given to McCarrick (were made) in a private way. That was the decision of Pope Benedict.”

Viganó said Pope Benedict made McCarrick’s sanctions private, perhaps “due to the fact that he (McCarrick) was already retired, maybe due to the fact that he (Benedict) was thinking he was ready to obey.”

But, McCarrick, “certainly he didn’t obey,” Viganó told LifeSiteNews.

. . . .

One of the elements of Viganó’s testimony being questioned is whether Benedict, in fact, had put restrictions on McCarrick after learning about the allegations against the former Washington D.C. archbishop.

An August 29 video produced by the US Bishops’ Catholic News Service (CNS) casts uncertainty on whether Benedict had placed sanctions on McCarrick sometime between 2009 and 2010, as Viganó had said in his testimony.

The video shows clips of McCarrick testifying before Congress in March 2011 on behalf of the USCCB, a January 2012 ad limina visit at the Vatican during which McCarrick concelebrated Mass and met twice with Benedict, and another May 2012 event sponsored by the Pontifical Mission Societies honoring McCarrick at which Viganó had spoken.

Viganó told LifeSiteNews he had already spoken to McCarrick at the time of the latter video clip, repeating the measures that had been taken to him by Pope Benedict, which his predecessor the late Archbishop Pietro Sambi had done as well.

Viganó, nuncio from October 2011 to April 2016, explained he was just beginning his role as the Pope’s representative at the time when each of the events in the various video clips edited together by CNS took place, and just learning the culture and hierarchy of his new assignment in the U.S.

Aside from just beginning in his mission, he said, the nuncio is not somebody who may enforce restrictions directly, especially with a cardinal, who is considered the superior. Such an enforcement would belong to someone in the position of Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, and McCarrick successor, said Viganó.

Another clip from the CNS video showing McCarrick attending an ad limina visit in Rome and meeting Pope Benedict, seems to suggest that the cardinal had no sanctions placed on him. Viganó explained that once again, McCarrick was not obeying the restrictions placed on him and that it was inconceivable for Benedict to take the issue up with the cardinal right then and there with all the other bishops present.

“Can you imagine Pope Benedict, as mild a character as he was, saying, 'What are you doing here?' in front of the other bishops,” Viganó said.

Another clip from the CNS video showing Viganó attending the Pontifical Mission Societies gala along with McCarrick seems to suggest that McCarrick had no sanctions and that Viganó was not anxious in the cardinal’s presence. Viganó told LifeSiteNews that he could neither forego attending the event, nor did he have an opportunity during the event to remind the cardinal of the sanctions.

“I could not say, “What are you doing here?” he said. “Can you imagine? Nobody knows (about the sanctions), it was a private meeting (when they were levied by Benedict). So this video didn’t prove anything.” . . . .

Steve Kellmeyer said...

Confitebor, if you want to say that the Church has failed, I can't stop you. But I also can't call you Catholic.

Given a choice between your bleak conclusion and the possibility that you are simply screwy in your assessments, I will quickly and happily choose the latter.

It's easy. No inconvenience at all.

Confitebor said...

Mr. Kellmeyer, I must emphatically decline your invitation that I profess heresy.

My assessments, as you well know, do not lead to the conclusion that Christ lied to us about the indefectibility of the Church. The doctrinal and moral errors of the pope, cardinals, and bishops does not, as you seem to think, mean that the Church has failed. It just means the the pope and many cardinals and bishops, to the extent that they fail in teaching and morals, have failed -- as Church history shows time and time again that they have done over the centuries, and yet the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, rises again. So too the Church will outlive the McCarricks and Wuerls and Farrells and Cupichs and Spadaros and Tuchos and Coccopalmerios and Marxes and Bergoglios of our age.

Paul D. said...

The Church is corrupt from top to bottom. The bishops are all corrupt and serve their own purposes.

Check out the testimony of this priest and another who confirms it.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/letter-from-a-frustrated-parish-priest-catholic/

Confitebor said...

Thankfully Jesus, not Papa Bergoglio, is the Head and Cornerstone of the Church, and Jesus has built His Church on St. Peter, not personally on the current successor of St. Peter, Pope Francis. That is why we can have confidence that, no matter what Papa Bergoglio says and does, the Church will survive. God will hold him to account for how he conducted his pontificate, for these grievous scandals, and for the uncounted souls lost.