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. Romanita 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 +Blase Cupich 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 III
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.
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 III
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.
Remember, "Viganò invited McCarrick to the nunciature to attend receptions, McCarrick takes part in the US bishops 2012 “ad limina” visit to Rome, where he concelebrates Mass at the tomb of St Peter, and in the same year, he is described by Viganò as “much loved by us all” at a gala dinner."
Update IV
Addendum:
When you look at the dates and how Vigano has handled himself in the years since, it all becomes clear. Pope Francis ordered McCarrick to resign July 27, 2018. Vigano began attacking Pope Francis August 25, 2018.
We already know Vigano publicly praised McCarrick in 2012, when Vigano himself testified that he knew McCarrick was not supposed to even be present at the dinner. it's on videotape, on Youtube.
What's going on? Well, Vigano is trying to undermine Pope Francis because Vigano is the point man for the homosexual lobby. When Pope Francis stripped McCarrick of his cardinal title, the Pope demonstrated that Vigano was incapable of protecting the homosexual clique. Vigano couldn't stand to be outed like that, so he has attacked Pope Francis ever since.
Abp. Vigano supplied documents (linked at the bottom of the piece below) suggesting that the claim that he tried to quash the Nienstedt investigation arose from a a misunderstanding on the part of Nienstedt's two auxiliaries, which they subsequently corrected. Will you adddress this?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vigano-issues-new-statement-documents-to-clear-his-name-of-false-charges
Two days after Bishop releases testimony in which reader must stake sum total of allegations (Pope covering abuse through sustaining left-homo network) on Bishop's interpretation/likely misunderstanding of expressions, words, events, Bishop must defend himself against allegations by saying they are based on interpretation/likely misunderstanding of expressions, words, events.
ReplyDeleteHuh, imagine that.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteIn fact, Abp. Vigano did not even state that the claim he tried to quash the Nienstedt investigation was "based on interpretation/likely misunderstanding of expressions, words, events" (as I recall he did not attribute any particular motive to them at all). That is my own charitable interpretation as to why the two Bishops' made the claim which they were subsequently happy to withdraw.
Alright then, two days after Bishop releases testimony in which reader must stake sum total of allegations (Pope covering abuse through sustaining left-homo network) on Bishop's personal "distortion" (whether intended or not) of expressions, words, events, and thereby putting the whole Church in a "very dangerous situation", Bishop must defend himself against allegations by saying they are based on "distortions" (whether intended or not) that put him (and the U.S. Nunciature) in a "very dangerous situation".
ReplyDeleteHuh, imagine that.
I’ve been empathetic/supportive of this site for some time. Sadly, I have steadily become less so. There comes a point when defending a certain positions or persons at any costs, will also include one’s own credibility. I am now taking Philip Lawler’s advice:
ReplyDelete“The key question is NOT whether Archbishop Vigano is a nice person, whether he has his own private goals (who doesn’t?), or whether he dislikes Pope Francis. The question is whether the charges contained in his testimony are true or false. Solid journalism will seek to answer that question; anyone who asks different questions should be treated with suspicion.”
https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=1634
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMr. Kellmeyer's reaction to Archbishop Vigano's sworn affidavit, as usual, attacks Vigano personally and doesn't address the content of the affidavit. That's the tactic that all of the defenders of Papa Bergoglio in this matter have been taking, but Mr. Kellmeyer's attempt is just as pitably weak and ineffective and theirs.
ReplyDeleteThe papalatrous smear campaign is not working, thanks be to God. From Edward Feser's commentary:
"This 'ignore the message and pillory the messenger' strategy would be contemptible coming from a grubby ward politician. It is, needless to say, utterly unworthy of the Vicar of Christ and his cardinals. But from the point of view of cynical political calculation, it has its advantages. It has, after all, seemed to work so far.
"However, I don’t think it will work this time. The conditions that facilitated it before don’t obtain in this case. Large numbers of Catholics hold heterodox views on matters of divorce and marriage and capital punishment, not to mention many other topics. They are quite happy with Amoris, the change to the catechism, and all the other doctrinally problematic statements the pope has made over the last five years. Meanwhile, many orthodox Catholics, well-meaning but naïve, have been willing to put up and shut up as long as they can cobble together some far-fetched interpretation of the problematic statements that seems to preserve continuity with past teaching. Then there are all the Catholics who aren’t even paying attention to these doctrinal controversies in the first place. Under these circumstances, writing off the critics as a minority of cranks can be effective.
"The current scandal is very different. Even in the current low state of the Church and society, no one wants to defend predatory perverts and those who cover for them, much less take them on board as close advisors. Nor are there theological nuances here that might seem to provide the guilty a means of finessing the gravity of their offenses. The situation is easily understood, and, given its salaciousness, bound to draw the attention and disapproval even of people who ordinarily take no interest in Church affairs. This isn’t some abstract doctrinal controversy. It’s a question of what the pope and the cardinals closest to him knew about “Uncle Ted” and when they knew it. Under these circumstances, refusing to comment except to smear your accusers only lends plausibility to the accusations."
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2018/08/hubris-meets-nemesis.html
Given Pope Francis' known support for notorious homosexual clergy and prelates, and his rolling back of the reforms that Popes Benedict and John Paul II had implemented for dealing with pervert priests (even to the point of reinstating a pervert priest while he was on public trial for molesting boys), and his accusing the Chilean victims of pederastic priests of lies and calumny, we can't but find Archbishop Vigano's accusations and revelations credible and the Pope's sycophantic defenders not credible. As others have observed, in a healthy Church the Pope's numerous materially heretical statements alone would have stirred the bishops into action to pressure him to repent or abdicate. His support for morally fallen prelates like Danneels and McCarrick, and his support for pervert priests, may at last be thing that spurs the Church into action.
How fitting that Vigano's affidavit came out on the Octave of Our Lady's Assumption. Her intercession and grace will cleanse the Church of both moral and doctrinal corruption.
Read through Da Vigano Code essay I wrote after this essay, watch the embedded video, and get back to me.
ReplyDeleteI know apologizing is hard, so I'll accept your silence as an apology.
Though you led with ad hominem fallacy in this post, you do attempt to address the contents of Vigano's testimony in the subsequent post. Your attempt misses the mark, however.
ReplyDeleteROTFL!
ReplyDeleteAh, the devil deserves nothing but laughter!
Again with personal attacks . . . .
ReplyDeleteSteve, you are nothing but disappointing on this issue. Confitebor speaks the truth and you recoil in fear and hiss in defense. Why?
ReplyDeleteSunlight is the best disinfectant.