This is another typically fine piece<\/a> from Where Peter Is<\/em>: a website dedicated to the radical proposition that the Pope is neither a heretic nor a monster:<\/p>\n In my last article<\/a>, I tried to illustrate how the nuanced concept of silence appears throughout Francis\u2019 corpus of theological thought. One question remains yet unanswered, however: why has Francis chosen silence as the venue to address his critics, namely the\u00a0dubia<\/em>\u00a0and Archbishop Vigan\u00f2\u2019s testimony?<\/p>\n With this in mind, I would like to recall some Advent reflections I made in the introduction to my last article. God\u2019s silence\u00a0can\u2019t be disassociated\u00a0from the problem of\u00a0Man\u2019s suffering. Precisely because of that, His divine silence scandalizes many of us, especially (but not necessarily) those who are disgusted with Him in the first place. Nevertheless we know that His silence is needed in order for Him to exert His project in a fallen world without being manipulated by Man. It is a dignified silence, which cannot be understood by men accustomed to contemporary society, with its characteristic\u00a0noise of constant commenting, instant reporting, and materialism.<\/p>\n Likewise, I believe that Francis\u2019 silence is a dignified silence too. Even if it scandalizes people, it is sadly needed in order for him not to be manipulated as well. For such is the intention of many of those who are sowing scandal by (among other things) accusing the Pope of silence in the face of great evils. They want him to break his silence in order to ensnare him and, in doing so, force him to comply with their ideas for the Church.<\/p>\n Take, for instance,\u00a0Amoris Laetitia<\/em>\u2018s (AL) opening of communion to divorced and remarried people who may have mitigating factors diminishing their subjective culpability, so that they are not in mortal sin. The format of the\u00a0dubia<\/em>, demanding yes-or-no answers, does not take into account the nuance demanded by this document, and the way the questions are framed tries to force Francis to chose between open heresy or forfeiting his manifest will. In this way, answering the\u00a0dubia<\/em>\u00a0on their own terms would actually cause more harm than good. Whether this was something actively willed by the\u00a0dubia<\/em>\u00a0cardinals we may never know, but it certainly does not bode well for them that they made the\u00a0dubia<\/em>public after an arbitrarily defined time they conceded the Pope to answer them (as if he should not be free to reply or not.) Nor does it speak well of them that they have yet to denounce the way the\u00a0dubia<\/em>\u00a0have been used by many of Francis\u2019 critics to undermine him.<\/p>\n As for Archbishop Vigan\u00f2\u2019s testimony, it is even more egregious. Vigan\u00f2 accuses the pope of mishandling a serious case of sexual abuse, and in a shameful display of inversion of the burden of proof, tries to force Francis to prove his innocence by\u00a0telling him to release documents allegedly\u00a0proving his point\u00a0instead of substantiating his accusations himself. \u201cRelease the documents<\/em>\u201d has become an anti-Francis mantra, just like \u201canswer the<\/em>\u00a0dubia.\u201d It is meant to shut Francis up whenever he says something his critics disagree with.<\/p>\n But even here we see an urge to control. Interspersed with Vigan\u00f2\u2019s charges regarding the sexual abuse crisis, we also see accusations of doctrinal laxity and ambiguity. These are codewords for Pope Francis\u2019 clear and magisterial teachings which are utterly rejected by his critics. The calls for resignation on the part of Vigan\u00f2 and his supporters are inseparable from their concerns that the Church might be doctrinally moving in a way they have no authority to resist. So they need to resort to these kinds of venues to remove an inconvenient pontiff.<\/p>\n However, just like the\u00a0dubia<\/em>, Francis reacted to Vigan\u00f2\u2019s accusations with silence. On a plane interview in the aftermath of the testimony\u2019s release, the pontiff said: \u201cI read the statement this morning, and I must tell you sincerely that, I must say this, to you and all those who are interested: Read the statement carefully and make your own judgment (\u2026) I will not say a single word on this.<\/em>\u201c<\/p>\n Nevertheless, how can we understand Francis\u2019 silent reaction in the face of these crises? Is there something in his theology or history\u00a0that may give us a clue? Yes, in fact, there is. Before his election to the papacy, Jorge Mario Bergoglio had already experienced the effects of being publicly calumniated.\u00a0As reported by Austen Ivereigh here<\/a>, back in the 1970s, Father Bergoglio was accused by left-wing Catholics of being a collaborationist with the Argentinian dictatorship. In the 1980s, such accusations resurfaced again \u201cagainst the background<\/em>of widespread shock and indignation at revelations of bishops\u2019 failures to protect their flocks from the army\u2019s torture chambers.<\/em>\u201d In fact, these accusations also\u00a0resurfaced fleetingly at the time of his election as Pope Francis<\/a>.<\/p>\n At the time, as in today, Fr. Bergoglio\u2019s answer to these baseless accusations from \u201ca backdrop of anxiety and anger verging at times on hysteria<\/em>\u201d was\u2026 silence. Denying those charges to people who were hell-bent on their truthfulness would not convince anyone. On the contrary, it would only give credibility to those allegations and stoke the flames of gossip. But if Francis was innocent, then time would vindicate him, for truth can\u2019t be hidden for long.\u00a0And in fact, that\u2019s exactly what happened<\/a>.<\/p>\n