Former nuncio now says sanctions against McCarrick were ‘private’

[OraLabora]

Contradiction? I’m not so sure, but confusion, it most certainly does.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Contradiction? I’m not so sure, but confusion, it most certainly does.

Perhaps, but today is literally the first time I’m hearing anyone say they thought the original sanctions were public. Although they were never explicitly called private, the description of them seemed to indicate that they were. That, and the fact that they were never said to be public, strongly suggested their private nature.

Now Vigano is clarifying to eliminate any doubt. That is a good thing, not a contradiction.

 

[Babaganoush]

I assume you are referring to the Kim Davis affair when you say ‘once again’. Abp. Viganò explained that today, and his explaination contradicts the idea that he ‘blindsided’ the pope. He may be lying but he references specific people that can be questioned to ascertain the truth.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Once again, this is what he wrote to the media.

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.

Now he says the sanctions were private.

Looks contradictory to me.

Jim

 

[Ghosty1981]

Now he says the sanctions were private.

Looks contradictory to me.

Show me where in that quote it says that these were public.

 

[Canvas]

I literally cannot understand how anyone can say what Vigano is saying now does not completely contradict his claims about similar strict censures being imposed on McCarrick by Benedict XVI as there are now in his letter. I have had issues with the claims he made before, but he is literally walking back claims that have been seemingly shown to be false. And the reports of Benedict XVI making any comment on this are not verified. Archbishop Ganswein called claims he verified anything “fake news”.

 

[Ghosty1981]

I literally cannot understand how anyone can say what Vigano is saying now does not completely contradict his claims about similar strict censures being imposed on McCarrick by Benedict XVI as there are now in his letter. I have had issues with the claims he made before, but he is literally walking back claims that have been seemingly shown to be false. And the reports of Benedict XVI making any comment on this are not verified. Archbishop Ganswein called claims he verified anything “fake news”.

Where did he say that these sanctions were public? In order for him to be walking anything back he would have had to have said, or implied, in his testimony that these sanctions were public. He not only didn’t say they were public, his description of how they were implemented was that of private sanctions.

And yes, the New York Times article that said that Ratzinger had verified the testimony was incorrect, but Vigano never claimed that Ratzinger had verified the testimony, nor did the National Catholic Register which initially reported the testimony.

 

[Babaganoush]

Because there is no contradiction. I would say the call to resignation doesn’t really follow from the accusations, because there were no criminal accusations against McCarrick at the time. But that doesn’t mean the accusations in Viganò’s letter are baseless or that they don’t deserve a response and an investigation.

 

[tafan2]

There is no contradiction between Vigano’s statements. As from the meeting with Kim Davis, he has explained that fully, all ng with providing details on how to verify his claims.

Say what you want, but Vigano is not the one who looks duplicitous.

 

[Canvas]

He said that the sanctions imposed against McCarrick by Benedict XVI were of similar gravity to the ones imposed by Francis this summer. He did not specify public sanctions, that is very true, because Benedict never publicly censured McCarrick ( none of us had heard about any alleged interdict until Viganos letter was released) but his letter quite clearly says that the penalty imposed by Benedict around 2009 was harsh and highly restrictive and Francis discarded the penalties and rehabilitated McCarrick in 2013 after being briefed by Archbishop Vigano.

 

[Ghosty1981]

He said that the sanctions imposed against McCarrick by Benedict XVI were of similar gravity to the ones imposed by Francis this summer. He did not specify public sanctions, that is very true, because Benedict never publicly censured McCarrick ( none of us had heard about any alleged interdict until Viganos letter was released) but his letter quite clearly says that the penalty imposed by Benedict around 2009 was harsh and highly restrictive and Francis discarded the penalties and rehabilitated McCarrick in 2013 after being briefed by Archbishop Vigano.

None of this has changed.

 

[Canvas]

I can agree here in part. As far as I know, before 2018, I do not know of an accusation that McCarrick abused a child. I think there are a huge number of things that need to be investigated. Decades of cover ups. Who knew,what and when and what did they do in response to accusations. What did the Vatican know? I want to know who is culpable for hiding the kind of atrocities that occurred in PA, here and at the Vatican.

 

[OraLabora]

Where did he say that these sanctions were public? In order for him to be walking anything back he would have had to have said, or implied, in his testimony that these sanctions were public.

He did imply. He said the sanctions of Pope Benedict were “similar” to those imposed by Pope Francis, which were public! Leaving out the nature (private vs. public) of the sanctions in the original letter simply obfuscates the manner. It’s an important point! Vital even! It means the sanctions were a private matter between Benedict and McCarrick and thus not a canonical matter. If they weren’t canonical sanctions and thus observing them a matter of good faith, and not publicly known, Pope Francis could most certainly use his discretion and not continue them, it is fully within his authority.

And since the matter was not known to be criminal at the time, it does not fall under failing to uphold the zero tolerance policy.

In other words, a tempest in a teapot.

 

[Ghosty1981]

He did imply. He said the sanctions of Pope Benedict were “similar” to those imposed by Pope Francis, which were public! Leaving out the nature (private vs. public) of the sanctions in the original letter simply obfuscates the manner. It’s an important point! Vital even! It means the sanctions were a private matter between Benedict and McCarrick and thus not a canonical matter. If they weren’t canonical sanctions and thus observing them a matter of good faith, and not publicly known, Pope Francis could most certainly use his discretion and not continue them, it is fully within his authority.

And since the matter was not known to be criminal at the time, it does not fall under failing to uphold the zero tolerance policy.

In other words, a tempest in a teapot.

He did not imply that they were public. If they were public then we would have known about them before; since we didn’t know about them there was no reason to say that they were private, as it was a given.

What remains to be seen is whether or not there is a paper trail. Vigano claims that there is, and that the records are at the nunciature and Vatican. We haven’t heard any confirmations nor denials from those parties yet.

 

[OraLabora]

A canonical sanction (Pope Francis) and a private sanction (Pope Benedict) are not “similar” as Vigano alleged in his original letter.

They aren’t even close.

 

[Ghosty1981]

A canonical sanction (Pope Francis) and a private sanction (Pope Benedict) are not “similar” as Vigano alleged in his original letter.

They aren’t even close.

Vigano has not said that it wasn’t a canonical sanction, he said it was given in “a private way”. Read the actual article at Lifesite where Vigano answered this question.

Pentin’s source is claiming that the sanctions were informal, not Vigano. That is not Vigano contradicting himself, it is an anonymous source reporting Ratzinger’s best recollection of the matter. We need to see the supposed documents to know the truth, and Vigano has already said where they can be be found.

 

[Canvas]

it is an anonymous source reporting Ratzinger’s best recollection of the matter.

Which Archbishop Ganswein, the Pope Emeritus’s personal secretary, has said is “fake news”.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Which Archbishop Ganswein, the Pope Emeritus’s personal secretary, has said is “fake news”.

No, he didn’t. He said that a report that Ratzinger had confirmed the letter of Vigano (a report from the New York Times) was fake news. The secretary said that Ratzinger had no comment either way on the testimony.

Here is the original article, translated from German.

It says:

“Pope Benedict has not commented on the ‘memorandum’ of Archbishop Viganò and will not do so,” Gänswein told the newspaper. The claim that the emeritus Pope had confirmed the statements lacked any foundation. “Fake news!” Says Gänswein.

New York Times claims Benedict has confirmed allegations​

The archbishop refers to a report in the New York Times citing a board member of the American news channel EWTN, Timothy Busch. According to him, the emeritus Pope confirmed theallegations made in Viganò’s letter.

People are not reading very carefully, and are jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

 

[tafan2]

You have not read the letter, have you?

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.

As you can see, the context of the word “similiar” has nothing to do with it being private or public. The word is used to describe the terms of the sanctions.
No where does this contradiction his later statement that they were private. As a matter of fact, within a couple of days, most commentators who took his letter seriously were saying they were likely private.

Again, Vigano is not the one being duplicitous. It is his critics that do so.

 

[OraLabora]

You have not read the letter, have you?

I certainly have read the letter. In its entirety. And have been referring to it frequently through these discussions as I have the file open in front of me. In fact I had already posted the same quote you just did, see post no. 16.

We are obviously interpreting it differently. A private sanction, whatever the terms, is different from a public one. A private sanction is very limited in scope. For instance, if the purpose is to prevent predatory behaviour towards certain classes of people, if the sanction is private, it’s impossible for bishops to take appropriate action to protect those classes in their diocese because they simply don’t know about it, and “enforcement” is entirely dependent on the good will of the penitent. If the sanction is public, then bishops can in fact take proper measures to protect in this case, seminarians in their dioceses.

So while the interdicts may be the same, the scope and enforceability of a private vs. public sanction are very much different. Hence the use of the word “similar” is misleading. In the private situation, the onus is entirely on the penitent to obey, something that cannot be guaranteed. In the public case, the bishops have the tools to enforce the sanctions in their dioceses. Now whether they choose to enforce them or not is another issue.