So now Vigano is starting to contradict his own original letter that Pope Francis lifted those sanctions.ROME - 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 was ever able to enforce them.
While Vigano went into hiding after publishing his “testimony” Aug. 25 about McCarrick - and about 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.
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, Vigano claimed Francis was aware of them. https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2018/09...ays-sanctions-against-mccarrick-were-private/
This isn’t a contradiction in any way, shape, or form. Vigano only ever indicated that these sanctions were relayed to McCarrick via Sambi, and to others on a need-to-know basis, as in the case of the meeting with seminarians that was cancelled by Wuerl at Vigano’s direction.So now Vigano is starting to contradict his own original letter that Pope Francis lifted those sanctions.
He never said that they were anything other than private. Furthermore, a prohibition against public masses wouldn’t preclude concelebration at non-public masses, such as at the Tomb of St. Peter (McCarrick was not forbidden from celebrating mass, according to Vigano).However, when reports started showing Bishop Vigano concelebrating Mass with Cardinal McCarrick when those sanctions were suppose to be in place, he had to back tract and now says those sanctions were private between Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal McCarrick and it’s not known what level they were at.
This doesn’t follow. Pope Francis may not have known, but it isn’t certain that he would not. At any rate we should see if the dossier on McCarrick indeed existed.Now, we learn that Pope Francis would not have known about those sanctions, because even Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI doesn’t remember the details on them.
No, this doesn’t make it false at all. He never said they were public, either. Had he said they were public, that would make his current statement a contradiction. In fact, he never said anything that implied that they were public.Actually, he never said they were private, but only that Pope Francis removed them.
This was false and proven so.
By saying that McCarrick didn’t need to abide by them anymore. Private doesn’t mean that Pope Francis was unaware of them; part of Vigano’s claim is that Pope Francis was aware, and not even the Pope has denied this yet.So, how did Pope Francis remove them if they were private according to Vigrano ?
Viganò wrote that Benedict much earlier had imposed sanctions on McCarrick “similar” to those handed down by Cardinal Parolin. “The cardinal was to leave the seminary where he was living,” Viganò said, “he was also 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.” Viganò did not document the exact date but recollected the sanction to have been applied as far back 2009 or 2010.
The second half of Viganò’s testimony primarily deals with what Pope Francis knew about McCarrick, and how he acted.
He recalled meeting Cardinal McCarrick in June 2013 at the Pope’s Domus Sanctae Marthae residence, during which McCarrick told him “in a tone somewhere between ambiguous and triumphant: ‘The Pope received me yesterday; tomorrow I am going to China’” — the implication being that Francis had lifted the travel ban placed on him by Benedict. (Further evidence of this can be seen in this interview McCarrick gave the National Catholic Reporter in 2014.)
So it’s gone from formal sanctions to a “private request”. I agree with JimR, it looks like the Holy Father’s decision to remain quiet was the wise one.“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.
None of this is contradicted, I’m sorry.From the original article by The National Catholic Register
There was no formal decree. Vigano never said that there was one, near as I can tell.So it’s gone from formal sanctions to a “private request”. I agree with JimR, it looks like the Holy Father’s decision to remain quiet was the wise one.
I note the word “similar” to the public sanctions imposed by Pope Francis once it became clear that McCormick was accused of a criminal act, sex with a minor.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.
Right. This isn’t a contradiction in the least.That’s right, he didn’t go into the level of sanctions Pope Benedict XVI had placed on McCarrick, but he did say that were in place and that Pope Francis removed them
Now he says the sanctions were private.
He didn’t say otherwise, either. I took it as a given that the sanctions were private, as there was absolutely nothing in the testimony to indicate otherwise.Well gee, he didn’t make the public know that they were private when he released his letter to the anti-Pope Francis outlets.
But things started to contradict this statement by Bishop Vigano when he was shown concelebrating Mass with Cardinal McCarrick, when the sanctions he claims were in place, forbid him from celebrating Mass in public.Viganò wrote that Benedict much earlier had imposed sanctions on McCarrick “similar” to those handed down by Cardinal Parolin. “The cardinal was to leave the seminary where he was living,” Viganò said, “he was also 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.” Viganò did not document the exact date but recollected the sanction to have been applied as far back 2009 or 2010.
That is exactly what he is doing. This doesn’t amount to contradiction.Vigano’s letter certainly leaves a lot of room for confusion. If anything, it is up to him and not the Holy Father to offer clarifications