By now, the testimony of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò is well known to most readers. It will take some time for us to digest the revelations made therein, and still more to see what impact they may have moving forward.
I speak of “revelations” as opposed to accusations deliberately. At this point in time, knowing what we know, absolutely nothing in Viganò’s testimony smells of fabrication.
Even so, at least one prominent Vaticanista has seen fit to question Viganò’s motives rather than accept at face value what he stated; namely, that his conscience urges him to speak out. I won’t waste time debating such things as those known only to God.
That is not to say, however, that Viganò is beyond reproach in the matter of protecting homo-deviant clerics.
As Randy Engel revealed in her two part series of articles written for The Catholic Inquisitor, as Apostolic Nuncio to the U.S. in 2014, Viganò ordered the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis to suspend its investigation into Archbishop John Nienstedt’s handling of homo-predator priests; even though it was far from complete and had already recorded credible testimony that Nienstedt himself is an active homosexual.
Upon doing so, the two auxiliary bishops in charge of the investigation warned Viganò, in writing, that doing so would be viewed as a cover-up.
Viganò responded not only by insisting that the investigation be suspended, he also ordered the bishops to retrieve and destroy the letter – a felony under state and federal law given the nature of the investigation and the rules of evidence.
That said, even though he has much to answer for in the Nienstedt case, what Viganò reveals is more than credible. With this in mind, here, I will offer some initial, common sense observations and four key takeaways from his testimony, as well as Bergoglio’s reaction to it.
1. Viganò’s testimony serves as a severe indictment of Pope John Paul II.
Though he labors to avoid pointing the finger of blame at the Polish pope, one cannot help but conclude otherwise.
According to Viganò, the Holy See had been informed of McCarrick’s “gravely immoral behavior with seminarians and priests” by November of 2000 at the very latest. It was in this same month and year that John Paul II appointed McCarrick Archbishop of Washington, D.C., thus elevating his influence considerably over that which he enjoyed as Archbishop of Newark, NJ.
The million dollar question is whether or not John Paul II knew about McCarrick’s homo-predatory behavior prior to making that decision. Viganò addresses this, stating:
Was McCarrick’s appointment to Washington and as Cardinal the work of Sodano, when John Paul II was already very ill? We are not given to know. However, it is legitimate to think so…
Nonsense. By his own testimony it is absurd to think so. Viganò writes:
[McCarrick’s] nomination to Washington was opposed by then-Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re. At the Nunciature in Washington there is a note, written in his hand, in which Cardinal Re disassociates himself from the appointment and states that McCarrick was 14th on the list for Washington.
In order for one to conclude that John Paul II did not know about McCarrick’s background, we must believe that the Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, Cardinal Battista Re, who most certainly knew the truth and felt very strongly that McCarrick should not receive the appointment, simply failed to inform the pope.
Like I said, absurd.
And yet, John Paul II not only went ahead with the appointment anyway, he made McCarrick a cardinal in February 2001, thus giving him a place in the conclave that would elect his successor!
Equally as absurd is the excuse that John Paul II, whose travels between 2001-2004 number no less than a dozen-and-a-half, was so “very ill” that he cannot be held accountable.
Bottom line: John Paul II knew about McCarrick and not only covered for him, he also chose to advance his ecclesial career and his prestige; even against the input of the Cardinal-Prefect for the Congregation for Bishops.
Why does Viganò find it so difficult to reach this obvious conclusion?
Simple: Whether consciously or not, acknowledging John Paul II’s culpability comes far too close to admitting that the conciliar church’s Santo dei tutti Santi isn’t really a saint, and from there it is but a small step toward acknowledging that the Almighty Council that he labored to implement was a mortal disaster in its own right.
2.Viganò’s testimony is also a severe indictment of Pope Benedict XVI.
According to Viganò, Pope Benedict XVI sanctioned McCarrick sometime in either 2009 or 2010; decreeing that he “was to leave the seminary where he was living, he was forbidden to celebrate [Mass] in public, to participate in public meetings, to give lectures, to travel, with the obligation of dedicating himself to a life of prayer and penance.”
Sanctions such as these are placed on a cleric for two reasons; first, to protect the members of the Church from a man whose office carries a great deal of influence and credibility, and secondly, to affect that man’s conversion. They are remarkably grave; especially when placed upon a member of the College of Cardinals.
And yet, the sanctions against McCarrick were never made public.
Viganò makes much about the degree to which the Nuncios to the United States, including himself, had called McCarrick to abide by the sanctions that were placed upon him by the pope, and how he personally confronted his successor, Cardinal Wuerl, when the sanctions were not being observed.
He fails to explain, however, why he and the other Nuncios always spoke of the McCarrick situation in private; behind closed doors. The reason, however, seems obvious enough.
The Apostolic Nuncio is the pope’s representative; i.e., he speaks for the pope. He delivers whatever message the pope wants him to deliver, and he keeps to himself those things that the pope wishes to be held in confidence.
It is unthinkable that Archbishops Sambi and Viganò took it upon themselves to keep the sanctions placed upon McCarrick a well-kept secret; rather, it is almost entirely certain that they did so at the behest of the pope, who without any doubt, did not order that the sanctions be made public as clearly they should have been.
Bottom line: Benedict XVI is culpable, and not only insofar as the McCarrick case is concerned.
Now is the perfect time for Benedict to act upon the influence of his own conscience concerning a number of points; if indeed he has not silenced it altogether.
For example, it is time to tell the whole truth about the Third Secret of Fatima and his hand in covering it up, the contents of the 300 page dossier, the real circumstances surrounding his resignation, etc.
3. Francis broadcast the game plan to his minions; publicly reminding the clerical homo-network of its duty to observe omertà.
Speaking to journalists aboard Heretic One yesterday, Francis said of Viganò’s bombshell:
I will not say a word about this. I believe the statement speaks for itself, and you have enough journalistic capacity to draw conclusions. It is an act of trust: when some time has passed and you have drawn conclusions, perhaps I will speak.
Let’s dissect this statement, shall we.
One of the messages being delivered here is intended specifically for the clerical homosexual network. In essence:
Those of you who have been named by Viganò are to keep silent. Let us give the homo-sympathetic media, Catholic and otherwise, a little time to spin the matter, to discredit the whistleblower, and to provide a framework for our defense. When the time is right to speak, if ever, I will let you know.
In the meantime, though he may encounter some bumps along the way, we can expect that Francis will simply stay the course; taking the conciliar church further down the road to perdition however he so pleases. We can also be certain that he and his devotees in the Curia will be carefully making note of those churchmen and others who dare to cast their lot with his critics.
As for the journalists, the message is plain. “It’s an act of trust…”
In other words: I’m counting on you in particular to carry my water and to draw conclusions that are favorable to me. If you want a seat on this plane moving forward, you’ll do just that. I will be watching.
4. Over the next few weeks, we will learn just how extensive the homo-rot truly is.
Clearly, Archbishop Viganò is hopeful that by breaching the wall of silence, such as he has, he will have set a precedent that encourages others to follow suit:
I implore everyone, especially Bishops, to speak up in order to defeat this conspiracy of silence that is so widespread, and to report the cases of abuse they know about to the media and civil authorities.
As I’ve written numerous times in this space, the problem at its core is not the homosexual network per se, it is the abandonment of faith; the Council, the new Mass, the dethronement of Christ the King, etc. As such, the next few weeks do not represent a “defining moment” for the Church, properly speaking.
They do, however, represent a defining moment for the present crop of churchmen as individuals; including those that claim to be champions of tradition (e.g., SSPX, FSSP, ICK). For each and every one – the bishops, the cardinals, the Superiors General especially, there will be nowhere to hide.
The Viganò testimony demands a response, and only one is appropriate in the immediate sense; that is, joining the Archbishop in calling for the removal of every complicit cleric named therein, Jorge Mario Bergoglio first among them.
If a churchman wishes to preface his comments to that end with, “If indeed the revelations are true…” fair enough; in fact, that would be most appropriate. Beyond that, however, no other qualification is excusable.
So, what should we expect?
Only time will tell what will happen over the next week or so, but I suspect that some among the homosexual network will be so overcome with diabolical emotion that they won’t be able to contain themselves and will, therefore, lash out in the media. Needless to say, those who attack Viganò directly are clearly working for the enemy.
I would go further to say as well that those who have very little to say under the guise of prudence, even if out of sheer weakness, and those who even hint at minimizing the problem, these men are also to be numbered among Satan’s servants.
In conclusion: As the dust settles from Viganò’s bombshell, whether or not it leads to Bergoglio’s undoing is not the most important thing; rather, it is what we will learn from observing how the rest of the hierarchy responds.