![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/533\/2017\/05\/14037472464_9569a64302_b-1024x684.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
From the National Catholic Register<\/a>:\u00a0 \u201cEx-Nuncio Accuses Pope Francis of Failing to Act on McCarrick\u2019s Abuse.\u201d\u00a0 Some excerpts:<\/p>\n In an extraordinary 11-page written testament, a former apostolic nuncio to the United States has accused several senior prelates of complicity in covering up Archbishop Theodore McCarrick\u2019s allegations of sexual abuse, and has claimed that Pope Francis knew about sanctions imposed on then-Cardinal McCarrick by Pope Benedict XVI but chose to repeal them.<\/p>\n Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigan\u00f2, 77, who served as apostolic nuncio in Washington D.C. from 2011 to 2016, wrote that in the late 2000s, Benedict had \u201cimposed on Cardinal McCarrick sanctions similar to those now imposed on him by Pope Francis\u201d and that Vigan\u00f2 personally told Pope Francis about those sanctions in 2013.<\/p>\n Archbishop Vigan\u00f2 said in his written statement that Pope Francis \u201ccontinued to cover\u201d for McCarrick and not only did he \u201cnot take into account the sanctions that Pope Benedict had imposed on him\u201d but also made McCarrick \u201chis trusted counselor,\u201d claiming that the former archbishop of Washington advised the Pope to appoint a number of bishops in the United States, including Cardinals Blase Cupich of Chicago and Joseph Tobin of Newark.<\/p>\n Archbisop Vigan\u00f2, who said his \u201cconscience dictates\u201d that the truth be known as \u201cthe corruption has reached the very top of the Church\u2019s hierarchy,\u201d ended his testimony by calling on Pope Francis and all of those implicated in the cover up of Archbishop McCarrick\u2019s abuse to resign.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Register links to the letter itself<\/a>, to which one help but react with a \u201choly ****!\u201d\u00a0 The letter is 11 pages, and contains very specific details and names many names, individuals who Vigano says must certainly have known about McCarrick.\u00a0 He details multiyear attempts to notify Benedict of McCarrick\u2019s misbehavior (that is, specifically confined to seminarians; abuse of minors was not known), which were blocked by the Vatican \u201cdeep state,\u201d if you will, until finally Benedict himself learned of the matter and sanctioned McCarrick, obliging him to life in prayer and penance in 2009 or 2010.\u00a0 However, Pope Francis removed these restrictions on McCarrick, enabled him to travel, give lectures, etc., and elevated him to a position of close advisor.\u00a0 In fact, McCarrick had been obliged to move away from the seminary under Benedict, but under Francis, he returned.<\/p>\n Now, it seems that right off the bat, Francis\u2019s defenders are attempting to discredit Vigano, such as a tweet (retweeted by Fr. James Martin) by Elizabeth Dias:<\/p>\n https:\/\/twitter.com\/elizabethjdias\/status\/1033551415350886400<\/a><\/p>\n But I have an extremely difficult time believing that Vigano is telling lies, because it would be an absolutely massive set of lies.\u00a0 One expects, in any case, that as much as can be confirmed, will be, though we may be looking at a situation in which the assertions can\u2019t be corroborated and in which those who Vigano accuses deny whenever there isn\u2019t any such evidence.<\/p>\n As I write this, I don\u2019t know what the news will look like over the next several days.\u00a0 These accusations certainly are in keeping with the portrait Ross Douthat paints in his recent book<\/a>, of a man who plays at being humble but in fact uses his power unhesitatingly.<\/p>\n I am also seeing a lot of new calls for Francis to resign.\u00a0 Quite honestly, if he were the sort of man who would be willing to consider resigning, we wouldn\u2019t be in this situation in the first place.\u00a0 So I don\u2019t know what will happen next, and I am not hopeful.\u00a0 What seems most likely, is simply that there\u2019ll be some sort of veiled criticism\/discrediting of the accusation by some sort of Vatican insider who\u2019s meant to be understood to be speaking for the Pope, and then silence, as unworthy of a response.\u00a0 And I don\u2019t know that outside parties will be able to sufficiently verify the assertions.<\/p>\n I\u2019ll update when there\u2019s more news.\u00a0 In the meantime, readers, please feel free to add your updates\/links and insights in the comments.<\/p>\n SUNDAY UPDATES:<\/p>\n It\u2019s late Sunday afternoon and I\u2019m doing a quick check of the news and commentary.\u00a0 National Catholic Review\u2019s article<\/a> on the subject disputes the claim that Benedict sanctioned McCarrick because, during Benedict\u2019s papacy, he did not seem to actually be sanctioned.\u00a0 (Is this true?\u00a0 Is this false?\u00a0 The article provides an instance from 2010, which would be consistent with Vigano\u2019s claims that the sanctioning took place in 2009 or 2010.\u00a0 Others are saying on twitter that there were later instances, but Vigano\u2019s defenders (or those keeping an open mind) suggest that, since Benedict didn\u2019t make the restrictions public, McCarrick flouted them.<\/p>\n The article further says that Vigano is not credible, because, if he had know, he should have made his allegations public earlier.\u00a0 And he doesn\u2019t hesitate to paint the accusations in the most dramatic of terms:<\/p>\n Vigano is a disgruntled former employee. Such people are always a bit angry. They are also often a bit unreliable. He was always a crackpot. But, make no mistake: This is a coordinated attack on Pope Francis. A putsch is afoot and if the U.S. bishops do not, as a body, stand up to defend the Holy Father in the next 24 hours, we shall be slipping towards schism long before the bishops meeting in November. The enemies of Francis have declared war.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Now, I think there\u2019s a lot to be investigated in Vigano\u2019s accusations.\u00a0 Is there any means of verifying his core claim that Benedict had sanctioned McCarrick?\u00a0 Is it possible that Vigano warned Francis, but Francis took these claims as the result of some infighting?\u00a0 And bear in mind that the accusations Vigano describes were not the instances of child molestation that have now come to light, but sexual misconduct with adult seminarians \u2014 how might that have impacted things?<\/p>\n But it is disconcerting to see these responses of circling the wagons, seeking to not just discredit Vigano but to cast this as a battle in which the pope, and perhaps by extension any bishop whose defenders judge to be accused for\u00a0political reasons, must always be defended, either deeming the truth irrelevant, or deciding in advance that because their cause is just, they know in advance that \u201ctheir bishops\u201d and \u201ctheir pope\u201d are in the right.<\/p>\n Another thought:<\/p>\n It\u2019s easy to see why Illinois politicians, for instance, engage in financial chicarny that masks the seriousness of the state\u2019s financial situation.\u00a0 As long at the state limps along until they themselves are out of power, that\u2019s good enough.\u00a0 But surely Catholic bishops, and the Pope himself, know that the Catholic Church is not just a short-term organization.\u00a0 Don\u2019t these men, in addition to their desire to serve the church, want to go down in history as successes rather than failures?\u00a0 Why would they sweep scandals under the rug for a short-term benefit when they know how dangerous this is the long term?<\/p>\n OK, that\u2019s naive, I admit.\u00a0 But given how many people have left the Catholic Church, it\u2019s insane for bishops or the Pope to imagine that they can just sit tight and wait for things to blow over, aided perhaps by mournful-sounding letters and new commissions.<\/p>\n