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)