Roberto de Mattei
Corrispondenza Romana
June 12, 2019
"The bottom line is this: Pope Francis is deliberately concealing the McCarrick evidence."
The
extensive interview that Archbishop Maria Viganò gave to Chico Harlan and
Stefano Pitrelli in the Washington Post of June 10th is of
exceptional importance for several reasons.
The first
and most important reason is that this interview indicates the utter failure of
the Vatican’s strategy of ‘silence’,
faced with the detailed accusations of the former Nuncio to the United States. Those
in charge of the Vatican media were convinced that Monsignor Viganò’s
revelations would have been confined to a ‘niche audience’, ready to be
forgotten after some moments of emotional excitement. This did not happen..
The
Washington Post is one of the most widely read newspapers in the planet, with millions
of readers and the Archbishop’s interview was, for almost three days, the
second most popular article on its site.
Monsignor Viganò’s voice has had an impact world-wide, shattering the wall of
silence and imposing evidence that cannot be ignored or minimized.
The second
reason, connected to the first, is that with his interview, The Washington Post
recognizes Monsignor Viganò as a historical witness, whose credibility cannot
be placed in doubt by anyone. The
Archbishop does not enter into the theological problems arising from documents
like Amoris Laetitia, but limits himself to addressing the facts that he knows:
the existence of a “corrupt mafia” which “has
taken control of many institutions of the Church, from the top down, and is
exploiting the Church and the faithful for its own immoral purposes”. This
mafia “is bound together not by shared sexual intimacy but by a shared interest
in protecting and advancing one another professionally and in sabotaging every
effort to reform the sexual corruption”.
Regarding the clumsy efforts of the Vatican media to discredit him, by accusing
him of having ambitions of power: “In any case, my motivation is not the point,
and questions about it are a distraction. The truly important question is
whether my testimony is true. I stand by it, and I urge investigations so that
the facts may appear. Unfortunately, those who impugn my motives have been
unwilling to conduct open and thorough investigations”.
With these words the Archbishop reveals a love for the truth, which deters him from backing possible errors [made] by the pontiffs preceding Pope Francis. Thus the insinuations, by those who try to get him to turn on Benedict XVI and John Paul II, collapse - as the article the Vatican Insider dedicated to the case after the release of the interview did. Monsignor Viganò responded preemptively in a very balanced manner: “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. I myself regret not having spoken publicly earlier. As I already said, I had truly hoped against hope that the Church could reform itself from within. But when it became clear that the successor of Peter himself was one of those covering up the crimes, I had no doubt that the Lord was calling me to speak up, as I have done and will continue to do”.
A central point to the interview is the repeated conviction that homosexuality ( and the failure of the Vatican’s response) is a fundamental part of the current problem in the Church, when dealing with the abuses. To the interviewer who asks him: “Can you explain, with as much clarity as possible how homosexuality as you view it is correlated with abuse?”.
Viganò responds “Let’s keep two arenas distinct: (1) crimes of sexual abuse and (2) criminal coverup of crimes of sexual abuse. In most cases in the Church today, both have a homosexual component — usually downplayed — that is key to the crisis. As to the first, heterosexual men obviously do not choose boys and young men as sexual partners of preference, and approximately 80 percent of the victims are males, the vast majority of which are post-pubescent males. […]. It is not pedophiles but gay priests preying on post-pubertal boys who have bankrupted the U.S. dioceses. […] As to the second arena, the “gay mafia” among bishops is bound together not by shared sexual intimacy but by a shared interest in protecting and advancing one another professionally and sabotaging all efforts at reform. […] Anyway, given the overwhelming evidence, it is mind-boggling that the word “homosexuality” has not appeared once, in any of the recent official documents of the Holy See, including the two Synods on the Family, the one on Youth, and the recent Summit last February.”
There is
another point in the interview that deserves to be highlighted: the evaluation
by Monsignor Viganò of Cardinal Theodore McCarrick’s reduction to the lay
state. This punishment, states the former Papal Nuncio, “was, as far as it goes, a just punishment, but there is no legitimate
reason why it was not exacted more than five years earlier, and after a proper
trial with a judicial procedure.” Against McCarrick, in fact, an
administrative process was carried out not a judicial one. It is hard not to
think that this was done in order to ”manipulate public opinion”: “Condemning McCarrick as a scapegoat with an
exemplary punishment — it was the first time in Church history that a cardinal
was reduced to the lay state — would support the narrative that Pope Francis
was firmly determined to fight against clergy sexual abuse”.
Vigano explains: “According to a
statement issued by the Press Office of the Holy See on Feb. 16, 2019,
McCarrick was found guilty by the CDF of “solicitation in the Sacrament of
Confession, and sins against the Sixth Commandment” with both minors and
adults, with “the aggravating factor of the abuse of power.” The penalty
imposed was laicization, which Pope Francis confirmed as “definitive.” In this
way McCarrick, who has always declared himself innocent, was deprived of any
opportunity to appeal the sentence. Where is the due process? Is this how
justice is done in the Vatican?
Moreover, having made the
sentence definitive, the pope has made it impossible to conduct any further
investigation, which could have revealed who in the Curia and elsewhere knew of
McCarrick’s abuses, when they knew it, and who helped him to be named
archbishop of Washington and eventually a cardinal. Note, by the way, that the
documents of this case, whose publication had been promised, have never been
produced.
The bottom line is this: Pope
Francis is deliberately concealing the McCarrick evidence.
“But
let us consider the far more important spiritual dimension, which was
completely absent from any declaration about McCarrick or any press conference
at the summit. The most important purpose of penalties in the canonical order
is repentance and conversion: “Suprema
ratio est salus animarum” (the supreme law is the salvation of souls). I
believe, therefore, that the mere “reduction to the lay state” is completely
inadequate, because it does not provide a remedy and does not express the
concern for the most important purpose of punishment, namely, the salvation of
McCarrick’s soul. Indeed, unless it is accompanied by other measures, a simple
laicization could be considered an expression of contempt for the lay state.
The idea that a prelate who misbehaves is punished by being “reduced” to the
lay state smacks of clericalism”. I believe, and I am not the only one, that
the penalty of excommunication — from which he can be absolved at any time
— should also be imposed on McCarrick. As an appropriately dosed medication, it
would be imposed to induce him to take responsibility for his sins, to repent,
to be reconciled with God, and thus to save his soul”.
These words help us understand an important question. Today, those who are
governing the Church advance by hitting with external administration, religious
institutes no longer wanted, and dismissing from the clerical state those who
might create problems with public opinion.
The reduction to the lay state is conceived as a “dismissal” from the
“Church-company” which can occur even without just cause. It’s all under papal decree, with no
possibility of canonical recourse. What
is forgotten, however, is that the Sacrament of Holy Orders, once received
never becomes null or void, because of its indelible nature. No
authority can cancel the ontological condition of the priest to whom we must
always show mercy. But above all, we
cannot arrive at extreme actions, such
as being reduced to the lay state, with no due process wherein the accused is
allowed to have his say and defend himself.
Those who do
not listen to reasons, perhaps do not have any [themselves] and are compelled
to lie in order to justify their conduct, as happened with Pope Francis who was
aware of McCarrick’s abuses, at least from June 23rd 2013, when
Monsignor Viganò, in response to the Pope’s precise question, told him of the
existence of a bulky dossier against the American cardinal.
Monsignor Viganò is, to date, the only bishop who has publically indicated
Pope Francis as the one directly responsible for the terrible crisis afflicting
the Church. To the question: “Do you
see any signs that the Vatican, under Pope Francis, is taking proper steps to
address the serious issues of abuse?”, the Archbishop responds: “Not
only is Pope Francis doing close to nothing to punish those who have committed
abuse, he is doing absolutely nothing to expose and bring to justice those who
have, for decades, facilitated and covered up the abusers.
And to the interviewers who ask: “Do
you think asking for the pope's resignation took attention away from your
message?” he responds humbly and firmly that: “I can see that it would have been better to address the matter you ask
about in the following way, beginning with a point I included in my third
testimony: “I am asking, indeed earnestly begging, the Holy Father to face up
to the commitments he himself made in assuming his office as successor of
Peter. He took upon himself the mission of confirming his brothers and guiding
all souls in following Christ, in the spiritual combat, along the way of the
cross. Let him admit his errors, repent, show his willingness to follow the
mandate given to Peter and, once converted, let him confirm his brothers
(Lk 22:32).”
Translation: Contributor Francesca Romana
