To the Nattering Nabobs of Negativity Necroposting:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

Since there are those who want play this game, let me be crystal clear: I have raised exactly one point on this stuff where it is clear Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano either prevaricated or was otherwise flat out disingenuous. I have cared not a whit about much of the rest because I do not have an ax to grind unlike certain parties who are butthurt because Pope Francis was critical about how wide their phylacteries are and the ornate nature of their tassels (cf Matthew xxiii,5).

These folks seem to want to relish publicly gloating and making sport of this akin to what Ham did to his father Abraham (Gen ix,22) rather than act more like Ham's brothers who had more decency and common sense than their brother in how they handled the scandal before them (Gen ix,23). One with a proper spiritual and ethical disposition would rather act in these matters like Seth and Japheth but that is neither here nor there.

Having gotten preliminaries out of the way, let us now look at what Archbishop Vigano originally said versus how he has subsequently spun his story on the main point in question. From the first testimony we have these words:

"Pope Benedict had imposed on Cardinal McCarrick sanctions similar to those now imposed on him by Pope Francis: the Cardinal was to leave the seminary where he was living, he was forbidden to celebrate [Mass] in public, to participate in public meetings, to give lectures, to travel, with the obligation of dedicating himself to a life of prayer and penance... In any case, what is certain is that Pope Benedict imposed the above canonical sanctions on McCarrick and that they were communicated to him by the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, Pietro Sambi..."

The Archbishop clearly speaks of imposed binding sanctions above because the pretext he draws from this was twofold. The first is that these supposed "sanctions" were "lifted" by Pope Francis:

"It was also clear that, from the time of Pope Francis’s election, McCarrick, now free from all constraints, had felt free to travel continuously, to give lectures and interviews... In any case, the Pope learned about it from me on June 23, 2013 and continued to cover for him. He did not take into account the sanctions that Pope Benedict had imposed on him."

And of course as a consequence of this supposed "lifting" of sanctions:

"Pope Francis must be the first to set a good example for cardinals and bishops who covered up McCarrick's abuses and resign with the rest of them."

This is the sequential chain which Vigano constructs to get to his request of papal resignation. Here is the problem with the chain so constructed: the goal posts have been moved repeatedly since the publication of the Archbishop's first testimony. When it was pointed out that then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick was present with Archbishop Vigano at public events and even had traveled to Rome and hung out with Pope Benedict, this seriously undermined the claims in Vigano's first testimony. When it was further pointed out that there were no actual sanctions imposed, the problem then was not how flat out wrong (either via prevarication or deliberate duplicitousness) the original claim was but instead how can this be spun to try and salvage the original narrative? This is hardly the actions taken by those who are honest brokers on this matter.

Now the ploy is to play a game of "well maybe they were just private requests" which of course is not the same thing as anyone with a normal intact functioning brain who is honest knows. And adding further difficulties for the original narrative is that the same pope that supposedly imposed these "sanctions" which were then "lifted" cannot even remember what he supposedly did! The Archbishop in his second testimony begs Cardinal Marc Ouellet to vindicate his claims from his first testimony and the Cardinal flat out refutes him on the central chain of Vigano's first set of claims. Again:

"The former Cardinal, retired in May of 2006, had been requested not to travel or to make public appearances, in order to avoid new rumors about him. It is false, therefore, to present those measures as 'sanctions' formally imposed by Pope Benedict XVI and then invalidated by Pope Francis. After a review of the archives, I find that there are no documents signed by either Pope in this regard, and there are no audience notes from my predecessor, Cardinal Giovanni-Battista Re, imposing on the retired Archbishop the obligation to lead a quiet and private life with the weight normally reserved to canonical penalties. The reason is that back then, unlike today, there was not sufficient proof of his alleged culpability. Thus, the Congregation’s decision was inspired by prudence, and the letters from my predecessor and my own letters urged him, first through the Apostolic Nuncio Pietro Sambi and then through you, to lead a life of prayer and penance, for his own good and for the good of the Church."

So what is Vigano's response to this crystal confutation of the core of his initial claims? From the third testimony, he has spun his original very forceful claims down to this:

"Cardinal Ouellet disputes that it is false to present the measures taken against McCarrick as 'sanctions' decreed by Pope Benedict and canceled by Pope Francis. True. They were not technically ‘sanctions’ but provisions, ‘conditions and restrictions’ but to quibble whether they were sanctions or provisions or something else is pure legalism. From a pastoral point of view, they are exactly the same thing."

Once again the bullshit meter rings out loud and clear. To claim there is no difference between sanctions (what Vigano originally claimed) and "provisions, conditions and restrictions" (what he has now claimed) is double-dealing of no small degree! And obviously there is a difference because Vigano has ceased since his first testimony to call for the resignation of Pope Francis! If there is no difference between what he claimed in the first testimony and what he has claimed since, he would have no reason to move from his original demand. But here is the rub: as there were no sanctions actually imposed, there were therefore no sanctions to lift. So his entire original claim collapses and he knows this; ergo, the manner in which he has moved the goalposts repeatedly on this point.

It is understandable to some extent that those easily confused or who have a vested interest in maintaining an agenda regardless of such inconveniences as facts might be excused if they were of good faith (emphasis on the if in that sentence). But considering that Archbishop Vigano possesses not only a lifetime of service to the Church and also is well credentialed in the area in question (he has a doctorate in canon law!), he ought to know the difference between the two. If he does not then his training is deficient. If he does, than he was being doubly duplicitous at the very least as he was not only playing slipshod with the truth but he was also hoping to skate by on the ignorance of most of those he was appealing to. Misrepresentation of private requests to keep a low profile as having anything akin to actual sanctions is a very grave defect in his original report and no amount of spinning like a top since that time can change that one iota.

Now I am aware that those who are dug in so deep on this that they cannot extricate themselves without having to embarrassingly admit that they were wrong. They have after all been propagating a grave defect and are not likely to want to man up on this which is to their discredit. It is no different than what conspiracy theorists do with their pet hypotheses whereby they stubbornly cling to what they want to believe and either ignore, downplay, or ridicule whatever inconsistencies and/or denials contradict them. What is important after all is not the truth but instead the agenda, advancing the chosen narrative at all costs whatsoever including that of their basic integrity.

For you see, the accuser (Vigano) and those that blindly cling to the accuser's claims can play semantic games while they try to slyly switch the burdens of proof by demanding the accused (Francis) prove their innocence rather than the accuser proving the guilt. The demand is made for documents of unverified existence (but are based solely on the claims of Vigano) to be released to "vindicate" the accuser (see Vigano's second testimony). But then, when documents are not released, the accuser claims this "vindicates" them as the Archbishop claimed in his second testimony. When it is then asserted that there are no documents to be released to substantiate the original claims of the accuser (see Ouellet's response to the second testimony), then the original claims are spun to claim that well there would not be documents anyway because they were not actually sanctions you see but instead were merely "provisions, conditions and restrictions." (Notice the slithering shift there!) And if by chance later on documents were found that did not match the claims of Vigano, then the problem would not be the Archbishop's original testimony you see but instead, it would be the documents so released were somehow doctored and therefore are not reliable anyway.

All of this is textbook protocols of disingenuous and unethical conspiracy theorists and it is how they make sure their claims are self-sealing and thus unable to be debunked. And this sort of practice is highly unethical on the part of not only those who engage in these charades but also those who publicly propagate these matters in smoke and mirror fashion to try and get any answer they want to confirm their preconceived biases. At bottom, to adhere to such a methodology involves both detraction as well as calumny: seemingly virtues in the mindset of those who act this way or by their examples encourage others to. I could go into detail on the profound spiritual diseases that permeates such folks but I question whether the effort would be worth the investment of my time. After all, those who are blind will only fall into the pit of their errors nonetheless (cf. Luke vi,39) so the best recourse is likely prayer. (I would rather as a rule invest my energies there these days where matters such as the above are concerned.)

So in summary, there is not much more that needs to be said here other than that I can admit the possibility that there may be some things of worth in Viganos screed despite the very grave defect noted above. However, those who have made a golden idol out of the Archbishop's original testimony and take glee in every subsequent testimonial release like an adolescent releasing on a nudie magazine centerfold are incapable of doing the converse. Why? Because they are afraid it would undermine their agenda. So these folks can continue to post whatever distractions they want on other points or play the "well it was not a sanction like he said in his letter but really private requests but they are the same thing so there is no spin going on" flimflam bullshit. They are not fooling anyone really. They can try and claim a circle is really a square but it is both disingenuous as well as beneath them to do so. Furthermore, it shows that on this issue they are nothing even remotely approaching honest brokers and need to be kept in prayer as possibly the only way to reach them (cf. Mark ix,29).

Another year gone
Another birthday arrives
Childhood more distant