ROME (CNS) -- Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, the former nuncio to the United States who called on Pope Francis to resign for allegedly lifting sanctions placed on Archbishop Theodore E. McCarrick, now says those "sanctions" were "private" and neither he nor now-retired Pope Benedict XVI ever was able to enforce them.
While Archbishop Vigano went into hiding after publishing his "testimony" on Aug. 25 about Archbishop McCormick—and about Pope Francis and a host of other current and former Vatican officials—the former nuncio has continued to speak to the writers who originally helped him publish the document.
Pope Francis has not said anything since Aug. 26 when he told reporters traveling with him to study the document and do their own research. Even if the sanctions were private, Archbishop Vigano claimed Pope Francis was aware of them.
The measures imposed by Pope Benedict were in response to reports of Archbishop McCarrick's sexual misconduct with and sexual harassment of seminarians. After allegations that Archbishop McCarrick had sexually abused a minor were deemed credible in June, Pope Francis publicly imposed sanctions on him and accepted his resignation from the College of Cardinals.
Archbishop Vigano now says Pope Benedict made the sanctions private, perhaps "due to the fact that [Archbishop McCarrick] was already retired, maybe due to the fact that [Pope Benedict] was thinking he was ready to obey."
Archbishop Vigano also had said Cardinal Donald W. Wuerl of Washington, Archbishop McCarrick's successor, had long been aware of Pope Benedict's sanctions, but the Archdiocese of Washington said Aug. 27, "Cardinal Wuerl has categorically denied that any of this information was communicated to him."
One of the outlets that originally published Archbishop Vigano's text, LifeSiteNews, published an article Aug. 31 with Archbishop Vigano explaining how, after Pope Benedict allegedly imposed sanctions on Archbishop McCarrick in "2009 or 2010," Archbishop McCarrick continued to concelebrate at large public Masses and visit the Vatican and Pope Benedict himself.
Archbishop Vigano now says Pope Benedict made the sanctions private, perhaps "due to the fact that [Archbishop McCarrick] was already retired, maybe due to the fact that [Pope Benedict] was thinking he was ready to obey."
The former nuncio said that in November 2011 he was sent as nuncio to the United States with specific information about the sanctions from Cardinal Marc Ouellet, prefect of the Congregation for Bishops. The cardinal has not responded to a Catholic News Service request for an interview.
Archbishop Vigano appeared publicly with then-Cardinal McCarrick at a May 2012 gala in New York honoring the cardinal. LifeSiteNews said the archbishop explained that "he was just beginning his role as the pope's representative at the time" and that "the nuncio is not somebody who may enforce restrictions directly, especially with a cardinal, who is considered the superior."
The other English-language outlet that originally published Archbishop Vigano's text was the National Catholic Register, a newspaper owned by EWTN. The Register had reported that it "independently confirmed" that Pope Benedict "remembers instructing Cardinal (Tarcisio) Bertone to impose measures but cannot recall their exact nature."
In a Register blog post Aug. 31, the author of the original story, Edward Pentin, provided more information from his source, saying the retired pope is now "unable to remember very well" how the supposed sanctions were handled. "As far as [Pope] Benedict could recall, the source said the instruction was essentially that [then-Cardinal] McCarrick should keep a 'low profile.' There was 'no formal decree, just a private request,'" Pentin wrote.
I remain perplexed why McCarrick was allowed to remain a Cardinal-ArchBishop-Priest for
continual actions with his Seminarians that would have had a Seminarian dismissed from
the Seminary - even if it happened one time in a moment of weakness.
How could the Rector(s) not know, the Seminary Formation programs take pride in stating
that they know all about the men they approve for ordination and are never in error about
those they dismiss. Yet, McCarrick was a Wolf in their midst and they as Shepherds stood
by while he selected what lambs he would devour.
Why hasn't McCarrick been laicised ?
The seminary rector did know. He joked in front of seminarians about having to "hide the handsome ones" when McCarrick would visit.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/new-allegations-surface-regarding-archbishop-mccarrick-and-newark-priests-50523
Of course, McCarrick's protoges Cardinal Tobin and Cardinal Wuerl, and his room-mate for 6 years, Cardinal Farrell also had to have known. They all deny it. Recently, Tobin has admitted to hearing rumors, but claims that he found them unbelievable.
If only the denials of the bishops were as easily believed as the reports of serial sex abuse by a cardinal of the Church.
The only leverage the laity have is money. Time to stop giving to the ACA if you live in a diocese which wants to cover for those who aided and abetted McCarrick.
Of course, McCarrick promoted a known child molester (Fr. Kenneth Martin) to be his personal secretary. Maybe it was easier to abuse a fellow abuser?
“Private” sanctions that cannot be enforced are effectively no sanctions at all. How common is this type of “discipline?” B16 may have been completely ineffective in this matter, but this points to a much larger problem in clerical culture. Wink, wink, business as usual, continue to persecute gay people while so many clerics live double lives.
no comment
Now comes Vigano's equivocations, backfilling, and self-serving explanations. It's pretty ham-handed stuff from a supposedly clever guy.
Are the Jesuits now covering for Wuerl as well as the Holy Father? Maybe you should print Spadaro's Facebook rant while you're at it.
How could Pope Benedict XVI impose sanctions "in private" when he knew about the evidence about McCarrick's sexual abuse? I think most Catholics and cannon lawyers, IMO, would consider this gross negligence on the part of Benedict XVI. How could Benedict XVI have no reservations about "publicly" sanctioning another sexual abuser, namely, Marciel, yet felt it prudent and justified to 'privately' sanction McCarrick? Why didn't Benedict XVI enforce his sanctions when McCarrick ignored them?
It is clear that Pope Benedict XVI and some Bishops/Cardinals turned a blind eye to the sexual abuse crimes of McCarrick. If Pope Benedict XVI and US Bishops/Cardinals did their jobs they would know that McCarrick also sexually abused a minor.
It appears that McCarrick's sexual abuse scandal was ignored because he was a 'Cardinal' and Benedict XVI wanted to protect the reputation of the Church at the expense of justice for the victims. This violated, in spirit, the Dallas Charter that was in effect at that time even though we know that there was a gapping hole in this charter because it does not deal with Bishops and Cardinals who cover up sexual abuse crimes or commit them.
We need to get to the bottom of all of these accusations, actions and inactions involving priest, bishops, cardinals and popes. We need transparency, impartiality and honesty in order to institute justice and effective and appropriate reforms for our Church today.
Let's pray for our Church, Pope Francis and the victims.
Michael - don't jump the gun on your accusations either. You have to wait for an investigation. All the corroborated evidence we have today suggests Pope Benedict XVI did the most on this, from defrocking 800 priests, to going after Maciel and calling it all filth in the Church. Let's see what evidence surfaces regarding McCarrick before you judge him for not sanctioning him enough, in public or in private. That has yet to be established by corroboration. Also, please use the correct name for McCarrick (it's not McCormick) by editing your comment.
Tim,
I am not jumping the gun Tim. I have an open mind and continue to argue that all those accused or implicated in this sexual abuse scandal should be considered innocent until proven guilty. However, let us get real here. I am not going to sugar coat what all of this information points to, namely, a culture of clericalism and highly inappropriate and/or immoral/negligent actions and inactions implicating bishops, cardinals and 3 popes.
Based on the latest news, Benedict XVI has a lot of explaining to do regarding McCarrick and it does not look good. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to connect the dots and demand answers to legitimate questions to what appears to be inappropriate and highly negligent actions and inactions regarding McCarrick from all 3 popes, in particular JP II and Benedict XVI....in my view. Thus, my comments are reasonable while I look forward to the findings and recommendations of an lay-lead impartial and transparent committee to thoroughly investigate all these matters.
Lastly, inadvertent typos are often caused by the editing software of this magazine that attempts to correct a word or name. Sometimes I miss it, so kindly recognize this. It is not a big deal.
But, you can edit your own past comments and fix the typo. Don't libel Bishop McCormick of Manchester.
You are not the director and marshall of rules here Tim. Your libel comment is absurd and arrogant because you know full well as well as everyone else who I was talking about. What is wrong with you?
I did edit and correct the inadvertent and unintentional typo, not because I was "libeling" an innocent person, far from it, Libel involves intent. I suggest you work on your own sacramental halo Tim, instead of irresponsibly over-reacting about someone else's.
Thanks, Michael. I agree libel requires intent. But, even honest mistakes, if correctable and knowingly left uncorrected, become dishonest in themselves. Honesty and accuracy is really the best policy.
This is a much better response than your libel comment. If I accused someone of libeling an innocent person, when in truth I knew otherwise or came to know otherwise, I would offer a correction or apology. Yes, honesty and accuracy is the best policy.
If it is “PRIVATE”, then should the whole basis for Vigano’s letter to request Pope Francis to resign become non-sense? What does Burke have to say about quickly going along with the letter? Is this the whole incident is just another miserably failed attempt by Burke and his ultraconservative cohort to discredit the Holy Father and turn back the clock on the Church? Shameful! Shameful!
Douglas,
Not only was it "private" but McCarrick never abided by these sanctions and Benedict XVI did nothing about it. In essence, the so-called private sanctions were disingenuous and a contradiction of the principle of justice. It was clear to just about everyone, in particular Pope Francis, that McCarrick's behavior contradicted Vigano's comment about sanctions. In essence, there were no sanctions in existential reality. So for Vigano to call for Pope Francis's resignation for lifting the sanctions on McCarrick is preposterous, absurd and a irresponsible attach on Pope Francis.
Douglas - interesting points form the New York Times today about the sanctions. 1) Pope Francis sanctioned McCarrick in 2017 when sex abuse of minor first surfaced and while investigation was underway. But McCarrick didn't comply (as before?). He continued to travel to China and to the Vatican for church dinners and attended ordinations of a priest and deacons. How did he get away with this? 2) Archbishop Gänswein refused to deny that Pope Emeritus BXVI sanctioned McCarrick? 3) On the plane, Pope Francis asked journalists to investigate the Viganò claims. The NYT said they called every named cleric in the Vigano letter but have been stonewalled,
NYT link https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/01/world/europe/pope-francis-benedict-mccarrick.html
What does Burke have to say about quickly going along with the letter?
My question exactly
What does Burke have to say about quickly going along with the letter?
My question exactly
Carlo "Kim Davis" Vigano is a piece of work. So BXVI's much-lauded sanctions against McCarrick now were nothing more than a request that he should keep a 'low profile'! What will they be said to have been tomorrow or the day after, as the press uncovers this mendacity layer by layer?! And Pentin and the NCRegister's alleged mole/vole/"inside source" who was adamant that Benedict XVI confirmed Vigano's testimony is now unsure about anything since BXVI is allegedly "unable to remember very well"! This ultra-conservative hatchet job on Pope Francis is bizarre, grotesque, mendacious, evil, satanic! And it is unravelling, falling apart at the seams ... Francis was right to tell the press to do some digging before he speaks to this matter, which is, frankly, beneath his dignity!
Rod Dreher's site refers to the following strange absence of McCarrick. According to the CUA website, McCarrick attended the CUA's fundraising "American Cardinals Dinner until 2006, then not again until 2013 (The year Pope Benedict XVI retired). Why this absence? Did somebody disinvite him?
I went through the photographs and confirmed McCarrick's absence. Why aren't secular journalists investigating this?
See http://cardinalsdinner.cua.edu/pastdinners/index.cfm
Perhaps he was trying to keep a "low profile"? Though he was supposedly only asked to do so in 2010 ... we can't be certain, though, since BXVI's memory is failing, and his vole is battling to get him to confirm much.
This article from David Gibson (Religious News Service) in the Washington Post in June 16, 2014 seems revealing. Some quotes: “McCarrick is one of a number of senior churchmen who were more or less put out to pasture during the eight-year pontificate of Benedict XVI. But now Francis is pope, and prelates like Cardinal Walter Kasper (another old friend of McCarrick’s) and McCarrick himself are back in the mix, and busier than ever.” What did Gibson know? Stop the cover up! https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/globe-trotting-cardinal-theodore-mccarrick-is-almost-84-and-working-harder-than-ever/2014/06/16/bf40f9b8-f581-11e3-930d-ca5db8eb8323_story.html?utm_term=.6f2c71f0e930
Also, “The two men had known each other for years, back when the Argentine pope was Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, archbishop of Buenos Aires.”
Gibson reports this exchange between Pope Francis and McCarrick when he had a pacemaker put in: He said “I guess the Lord isn’t done with me yet,” The pope replied (laughing): “Or the devil doesn’t have your accommodations ready!”
“I guess the Lord isn’t done with me yet,” he told the pope.
“Or the devil doesn’t have your accommodations ready!” Francis shot back with a laugh.”
Pope Francis is the Vicar of Christ, Tim. Why do you continually denigrate him and the Church?
Guill - I believe Pope Francis is in earnest in holding fast to the faith. but many around him are not. I think he made a serious error of judgment in rehabilitating McCarrick and has been getting very bad advice from McCarrick and other top Vatican prelates, and has made some very bad appointments as a result. I believe the evangelical mission of the Church will be damaged by stonewalling. I want him to recognize who his true friends are, and to authorize a full investigation into the McCarrick case and the rest of the sex lobbies that have put their own sexual liberation ahead of the Gospel. The 15,000 women in their letter to Pope Francis today, and the multiple bishops who have asked for an investigation are doing the same thing.
The photo at the top of the column is a snapshot of how Vigano felt in close proximity with Uncle Ted. Maybe Vigano wanted to be invited to Teddy’s room? But lo, several years later Carlo “man of integrity” Vigano says Uncle Ted was an evil dirty old man who did not follow the sanctions that B16 uttered under his breath: translation, “I didnt get my red hat while Uncle Teddy did....and he never invited me to his room”
Vigano should be on suicide watch. Perhaps Pentin is following him around to write about his final moments for EWTN.
Fr James Alison's article expertly illustrates the general rule that "the heterosexuality of a cleric is inversely proportional to the stridency of his homophobia" ... http://jamesalison.co.uk/texts/were-in-for-a-rough-ride/
I agree, the photograph betrays a tremendous intimacy, perhaps even flirtatiousness, between Uncle Teddy and Carlo "Kim Davis" Vigano. Vigano, after all, has been inordinately strident in his homophobic utterings!
“betrays a tremendous intimacy”
Yup. Would you covort with a known sexual predator, as documented in umpteen files that Vigano alleges? Clearly Vigano wasnt aware of the photos taken of him when he wrote his missive attacking the Papacy. Now he and EWTN have to create stories to distract from the obvious message relayed in the photos. And yet, there is Vigano chumming up to Uncle Teddy. Hysterical
Thanks for the link to Fr James. Fascinating fellow! I shall get to know his writings.
http://jamesalison.co.uk/about/
What is it about the homosexual that the worst insult they can fling at their opponent is to say "you must be one of us."
Several are doing this on these America comboxes.
There is a world of difference between a self-accepting gay person, and a closet case. Those gays who are in denial are often extremely dangerous, and are given to using strident homophobic language to protect their closet. Just ask John "I am a heterosexual man" Nienstedt! He condemned same-sex civil marriage, and led a campaign to ban gay marriage in Minnesota, contributing around $650 000 of church funds to the campaign for a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, which failed. We look forward to hearing the charges which allegedly were so hot they could have burnt the varnish off the Pope's desk ... funny, it was Vigano who called for an abrupt end to Nienstedt's investigation, even though there were more than 20 new leads to follow ... he wasn't so desperate to "seek the truth" then, was he!
Vincent - Vigano responded to the NYT, saying it was fake news. See link below. But, imagine if a black man accused the worst racists of being secretly black. I think this insult is used because deep down homosexuals know what they are doing is not quite right.
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/08/27/archbishop-vigano-responds-to-criticisms-of-handling-of-2014-nienstedt-investigation/
I hear Archbishop Vigano is indeed in hiding, afraid for his life because he has gone public. I hope this is paranoia. http://catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2018/08/30/vigano-has-broken-the-silence-expect-the-vatican-to-dig-in/
“I hear.....Vigano afraid for his life”
Fake news.
If Edward Pentin, EWTN owned media outlets or other dubious catholics are making any claims, they should be taken as fake news.
“Similar claims that the archbishop is concerned about his safety were made by Edward Pentin of the conservative National Catholic Register. Journalist Marco Tosatti, who says he helped the archbishop draft his bombshell 11-page letter, which was published on Sunday, told the BBC: "I don't know where he may be. He told me that he wanted to remain quiet. And at the moment, he's not answering his phone."
He made no mention of threats to his welfare, however.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45332850
Pentin is off the rails. Respected journalists are punching holes into all of his statements including the Secretary to Pope Emeritus B16
Tosatti said "He told me that he wanted to remain quiet" ... and yet, Carlo "Kim Davis" Vigano continues to indulge his hatred of Pope Francis with fresh attacks! What a bunch of mendacious liars!
“mendadious liars”
Bingo. Particularly in the case of Vigano’s apologists.....habitual liars
“mendacious” adjective
Given to or marked by deliberate concealment or misrepresentation of the truth:
can you keep a low profile and continue to be a sexual predator at the same time?
Another argument in favor of sanctions for at least some known abusers of minors is in this Associated Press report in Feb 2017. McCarrick had not yet been accused of abusing minors so it is likely Pope Francis would have been even quicker to forgive. Hence, McCarrick's renewed public role: "Pope Francis has quietly reduced sanctions against a handful of paedophile priests, applying his vision of a merciful Church even to its worst offenders in ways that survivors of abuse and the Pope’s own advisers question. One case has come back to haunt him: An Italian priest who received the Pope’s clemency was later convicted by an Italian criminal court for his sex crimes against children as young as 12. Fr Mauro Inzoli is now facing a second church trial after new evidence emerged against him, The Associated Press has learned."
"“With all this emphasis on mercy … he is creating the environment for such initiatives,” the Church official said, adding that clemency petitions were rarely granted by Pope Benedict XVI, who launched a tough crackdown during his 2005-2013 papacy and laicised some 800 priests who raped and molested children. At the same time, Francis also ordered three longtime staffers at the CDF dismissed, two of whom worked for the discipline section that handles sex abuse cases, the lawyers and Church official said."
http://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/02/27/pope-reduces-sanctions-against-some-paedophile-priests/
Tim,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments and the documentation links you provide for this discussion. They are greatly appreciated.
Curiouser and curiouser.
Three questions about the World Meeting of Families, excluding the heterodox talk by Fr. Martin (John Waters article)
1. Why were all the Irish pro-life, pro-family activists excluded from its panels and speakers?
2. Why were journalist panels of commentators on Ireland’s national radio & TV comprised of approx 50% LGBT activists?
3. Why did the Irish media hold off on the Viganò until Pope Francis was leaving?
For #1, was Pope Francis aware of this omission? Was Cardinal Farrell aware (he was, McCarrick's roommate for years). All of this is very suspicious. We need an investigation that gets to the bottom of this. I suggest Muller (the Cardinal, not the special prosecutor).
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/08/francis-and-the-journalists
Archbishop Vigano, the alleged “Catholic” press that publishes him, and those Catholic “commentators” who exacerbate the Vigano stories with never-ending analysis succeed in scandalizing the faithful even more than some of the clerical abuses that they claim to denounce. We are witnessing and reading the clerical version of the David Pecker/National Enquirer phenomenon with Trump. It gives new life and meaning to that old Protestant saw about the “whore of Babylon.”
Vince
It seems that you are mentally unable to view even the incredible crisis confronting the Church except through a political lens and as a required moment to launch an attack on Trump.
Vincent - do you really think Pope Francis is best served by letting the secular media delve into this alone? He doesn't believe what they believe (what you believe) on morality and when they turn on him they will tear him apart. Wasn't it the fear of scandal that got the Church into this mess in the first place. Best to get it all out now and then get the Holy Father to be part of the reform. I do not want him to resign. That would be terrible. It looks today that Pope Benedict XVI made a mistake by retiring, even though his motivations were humble and holy. Pope Francis too is a holy man who may have made several mistakes of judgment. He can still lead the reform.
Vincent,
This Vigano letter, as well as the McCarrick scandal, et al, raises significant questions that only an lay-lead, impartial and competent investigative committee with Vatican participation can answer. Until we get to the bottom of legitimate questions we should refrain from speculation and a rush to judgment. Here are a few of my questions that we all should not lose sight of:
1. Why did Pope JP II promote McCarrick to Cardinal when bishops and cardinals knew of his sexual abuse accusations concerning seminarians. These accusations were known for a long time. Did JP iI not know of these sexually abusive accusations? Did Pope JP II's Cardinal advisors withhold this information from him or minimized these accusations? Did Pope JP II believe that sexually abusing adults were less morally corrupt than sexually abusing minors (as the 'minor' issue was not fully known or vetted at that time)? Even if Pope JP II thought so (and I don't believe he did) what moral justification could there be for promoting McCarrick to Cardinal in light of this highly immoral behavior? Why did JP II not demote McCarrick instead of promoting him?
2. Why did Pope Benedict XVI choose to "privately" sanction McCarrick? Why did Benedict XVI do nothing when McCarrick refused to abide by these sanctions?
3. What did Pope Francis know about McCarrick's sexual abuse accusations, especially Benedict XVI's sanctions, and when did he know it? Did Pope Francis assume that such sanctions were not imposed by Benedict XVI or that Benedict XVI may have lifted them himself....since it was well known that McCarrick never abided by sanctions? If Pope Francis knew about McCarrick's sexually abusive accusations with seminarians, why did he not act when he knew this?
From recent news articles it seems that a lay-lead committee will be approved by the USCCB in November to investigate the McCarrick scandal, the Vigano letter and the Grand Jury Report. It also appears that Cardinal DiNardo will go to the Vatican beforehand to seek Pope Francis's approval and cooperation, including permitting members of the committee to have full access to, and the questioning of, Bishops and Cardinals, perhaps Pope Francis himself, all documents, emails, etc.
Let's hope this happens so we can get to the bottom of all of these accusations, speculations, questions and the reforms we need.
Stuart, I would argue to you that the same “ends justifies the means” rationale is being used by Vigano, Burke, ETWN and the “conservative” Catholic media to their goal to undermine Pope Francis as was done by Pecker, National Enquirer and Fox to their goal to buttress support for Trump. That’s what I meant and the use of a parallel example in the current USA context was my purpose.
Tim, I do not believe that the Pope is thoroughly conversant with every local issue in every local Church. He depends upon those who inform him. There are those who surround Francis who do not agree with his style and approach. Vigano was one of them. The “office politics” of the Vatican are best left unsaid in my opinion. Francis is astute enough to realize that.
Michael, with you I agree that lay membership on some kind of advisory board regarding the behaviors of Bishops is a useful tool. Your other points are of no interest to me in terms of finding out what JPII and BIV and Francis knew and when. Those are all internal issues for which they will be held accountable by God, not us.
In 2008, A.W. Richard Sipe reported to Pope Benedict XVI that "I have interviewed twelve seminarians and priests who attest to propositions, harassment, or sex with McCarrick," If in fact, "There was 'no formal decree, just a private request," then was that a proper response to the allegations? Also, why is Francis simply demoting McCarrick instead of laicizing him like the priests who were laicized after having been abused by McCarrick? It seems like predator bishops are dealt with far less severely than predator priests.
cowards use fake names on these forums while violating Terms of Service of commenting policies.