Viganò’s Washington Post interview

On June 10, the Washington Post published a lengthy interview of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò. Though it has been much commented upon already, I would like to touch on a handful of points that may not have been adequately addressed elsewhere.

When asked to comment on the Vatican’s (read, Jorge Bergoglio’s) intervention that disrupted the USCCB’s plan to draft measures to deal with the homo-clerical abuse scandal last November, Viganò said: 

Had interference not occurred, the November meeting of the USCCB would unquestionably have examined the problems of episcopal corruption, episcopal coverups and mendacity, episcopal sexual misdeeds, both with minors and adults — any of which would intolerably implicate and embarrass the Holy See. The shutdown was wholly unjustified in itself but proceeded from panic. The American bishops were exercising their legitimate duties and responsibilities, and one wonders how a pope who calls for “synodality” could carry out such an intrusion.

One cannot but agree with Archbishop Viganò’s suggestion that Jorge Bergoglio’s intervention at the USCCB November meeting (as carried out by his American messenger boy Blazing Cupich) revealed that his commitment to “synodality” is utterly disingenuous and only applies when he finds it advantageous.

That said, the idea that the USCCB was ever prepared to act in a way that might embarrass the big wigs in Rome, Bergoglio chief among them, is complete fantasy.

Last week, beginning the day after the Viganò interview was published, the USCCB commenced its Spring General Assembly in Baltimore which, under the leadership of Archbishop William E. Lori, also happens to be home to more LGBT friendly parishes per capita than any other diocese in the USA.

A review of the documents overwhelmingly approved by the assembly have nothing but words of adulation for the Heretic-in-Chief. Throughout the texts one finds references to “Pope Francis” and the “Holy Father” that are written in such way as to make it appear that he is part of the solution.

For instance, in the “Protocol” that addresses the treatment of bishops who either resigned or were removed “due to grave acts of commission or omission,” the USCCB opens by quoting their faithless leader, Bergoglio, as saying:   

“I deeply regret that some bishops failed in their responsibility to protect children … I am deeply pained by the stories, the sufferings and the pain of minors who were sexually abused by priests.”

The bishops continue, “Pope Francis went on to say that the crime of sexual abuse of minors may no longer be kept hidden.”

The USCCB is obviously in cover-up mode; in this case, covering for Jorge the Duplicitous of whom Archbishop Viganò said with respect to his claim that he knew nothing of McCarrick’s homo-predatorial crimes:

The Supreme Pontiff is now blatantly lying to the whole world to cover up his wicked deeds!

At this point, one wonders if Archbishop Viganò would like to amend his prediction concerning the USCCB’s willingness to address the abuse crisis back in November in a way that might embarrass the so-called “Holy See.”

Furthermore, one may wonder if he might also have something to say about the USCCB’s predictable failure to mention the “H” word – no, not heresy, the other one – homosexuality; which lies at the very  root of the crisis, a point he reiterated in his Washington Post interview.

The bigger mystery is why Viganò, after serving as Apostolic Nuncio to the United States for five years, feels compelled to say anything even remotely positive about the USCCB.

My guess is that he was under the mistaken impression that the USCCB was in his corner in light of comments made in 2018 by Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, President of the Conference, who said that Archbishop Viganò’s revelations “deserve answers that are conclusive and based on evidence.”

In any case, now he knows better – the USCCB is Bergoglian through and through.

When asked to share his opinion of the media’s coverage of his testimony, Viganò took them to task for their failure to press Bergoglio for answers. The reason, according to the Archbishop, is that the media favors his “more liberal approach to matters of Church doctrine and discipline, and do not want to jeopardize his agenda.”

In truth, it goes much deeper than this. The overwhelming majority of mainstream media members are not Catholic in any genuine sense of the name. As such, their only real interest in “doctrine and discipline” concerns the way in which the Church can aid in bringing to fruition their vision for a New World Order; the captains of which are in firm control of the media.

With their dreams of a President Hillary Clinton dashed in November 2016, the media’s godless globalists are not about to jeopardize the position of their remaining most powerful ally, Jorge Bergoglio, in any meaningful way.

In reference to documents that remain hidden, Viganò had a number of interesting things to say.

I sincerely wish that all documents, if they have not already been destroyed, would be released. It is entirely possible that this would harm the reputation of Benedict XVI and Saint John Paul II, but that is not a good reason for not seeking the truth. Benedict XVI and John Paul II are human beings, and may well have made mistakes. If they did, we want to know about them. Why should they remain hidden? We can all learn from our mistakes.

In this, it appears that Viganò is ramping up his efforts to launch a pre-emptive defense of both John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Why? Because he knows very well that if and when said documents come to light, it will be clear to all that both of these men have been complicit in covering for the homosexual network, and his affection for both men compels him to soften the blow.

Readers may recall that Viganò’s initial testimony of August 2018 included the following lame excuse:

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…

This suggestion is absurd on a number of levels; not the least of which concerns the fact that Wojtyla was plenty healthy enough to make no less than a dozen-and-a-half so-called “Apostolic Journeys” between 2001 and 2004.

What’s more, the Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops under John Paul II, Cardinal Battista Re, most certainly knew the truth about McCarrick. As Viganò himself testified, Re therefore felt very strongly that Uncle Ted should not be appointed Archbishop of Washington. There can be no doubt that the Prefect made his concerns and the reasons for them known to John Paul II, and yet, he made the appointment anyway.

Archbishop Viganò went on to suggest the he is sitting on some damning evidence of his own, saying:

The time has not yet come for me to release anything. I suggest you ask Pope Francis and the prelates I named in my testimony to release the relevant documentation, some of which is quite incriminating, assuming they have not yet destroyed it.

It seems to me that Viganò is now resigned to the fact that John Paul II and Benedict XVI are not going to escape blame for the present homo-clerical crisis. I’m not convinced that he had fully considered the degree to which this would be the case previously; i.e., he seems to have believed (in August 2018 when he first went public) that he could indict the Vatican’s bad actors in a way that would not sully Wojtyla’s and Ratzinger’s reputations.

Now, it appears that he is running out of patience and may very well have a deadline in mind when he will make public whatever evidence he has in his possession; after which, he will deal with the fallout, whatever it may be, however he might.

I, for one, cannot wait. As I wrote when the Viganò bombshell first dropped:

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.

With this in mind, it will be interesting to see how the “conservative” crowd reacts to what lies ahead. Stay tuned.