From The Mail: A Response To Vigano

August 30, 2018

From a priest:

Dear Friends in Christ,

The following article is in response to the requests received asking for clarification on Archbishop Viganò’s letter accusing the Roman Pontiff Francis of abdicating the Papacy and demanding his resignation.

Consider the timing of the 77-year old archbishop emeritus’ 7,000-word anti-papal manifesto, released exactly 2 weeks after the death of his associate R. Sipes, whose website the archbishop promotes and that contains sensationalistic and graphic anti-papal and anti-Vatican propaganda, within a week of the PA Grand jury’s report on sex abuse and while the Roman Pontiff was in the act of apologizing to sex abuse victims of Ireland. At a time when the Church is roiled by scandal, the timing of the archbishop’s manifesto was clearly intended to inflict the most damage possible to the Roman Pontiff whom God chose in a canonically valid conclave to lead the Church. No less telling are the following contents of Viganò’s manifesto, in which he,

a) promotes the website of R. Sipes, an ex-priest who fathered a child from a former nun and practiced psychotherapy
b) shamelessly incriminates the Pope and members of the Jesuit order to which the Pope belongs
c) brazenly accuses the Pope of indiscretions without providing any evidence or footnotes, thereby requiring of the reader blind adherence to his personal views – a professor would give Viganò an “F” for his libelous methodology
d) accuses the Pope of abdicating the Papacy
e) publicly demands the Pope’s resignation
f) claims that Cardinal Re told he Pope that sometime between 2009 and 2010 Pope Benedict XVI told Cardinal McCarrick to stop living at a seminary, saying Mass in public, traveling and lecturing, and yet there is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. In point of fact, when Viganò was recently contacted to provide evidence for this claim in his manifesto, he refused to answer and to date remains embarrassingly silent. Contradicting Viganò’s claim is the following fact: Cardinal McCarrick continued to celebrate Mass, travel and lecture throughout the Papacy of Benedict XVI. Indeed, he visited Rome during Benedict XVI’s Pontificate and stayed at the North American College of Rome, the residence for U.S. seminarians. Anyone who thinks Benedict would tolerate such disobedience doesn’t know Pope Benedict XVI. Truth is, there is no evidence to support Viganò’s claim. Rather there is evidence that Pope Francis – the Pope Viganò attacks – that imposed clear sanctions on Cardinal McCarrick. Oddly, Viganò places all the blame on Francis, while Pope St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI escape his criticism. Viganò implies that McCarrick’s appointment to Washington and as a cardinal was the work of Cardinal Sodano “when John Paul II was already very ill.” Yet McCarrick was appointed archbishop of Washington in 2000 – five years before John Paul died. Otherwise put, Viganò would have us believe that Pope John Paul II was a mere puppet during his last five years in office. Nor does Viganò make a solitary mention of the fact that McCarrick’s abuse of seminarians was so widely known in John Paul’s curia that it is hard to believe that Cardinal Ratzinger did not know. It is clear that Viganò is taking a biased and direct aim at Pope Francis – the polar opposite attitude one should expect of an archbishop who fed off the Vatican salary for decades.

g) presents himself as a born-again defender of the abused, without mentioning the more damning recorded evidence of himself: During legal proceedings against the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, a 2014 letter from Viganò was uncovered in which he told an auxiliary bishop to limit an investigation into sex abuse against the local archbishop and to destroy evidence. Although this information came directly from the Law firm involved in said abuse case and reiterated in a 2016 New York Times article, Vigano contests the contrary.
h) makes the patently false claim that when he approached Pope Francis, the Pope “immediately assailed me with a tone of reproach”, whereas this event, recorded on video, shows the “immediate” response the Pope to be quite the opposite – the Pope was cordial and inviting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bywCzrlxsK0

Also telling are the personal issues surrounding Viganò that reveal him to be a disgruntled employee who was denied the job he sought under Pope Benedict XVI and the red hat. Consider the following reported facts of Viganò:

(a) he complained of being exiled (not getting the job he sought) because he had made enemies trying to reform Vatican finances

(b) he was frustrated with his job as nuncio after the election of Pope Francis, who did not agree with his “recommendations” in the appointment of bishops (note: the Pope is not obliged to obey Viganò, rather Viganò is obliged by Church doctrine and canon law to obey the Pope – see footnote 5)

(c) many of the people Viganò publicly incriminates are the same people with whom he had conflicts for years in the Vatican

(d) he openly criticizes the “Authentic Magisterium” of the Church;3 he had signed his name to a statement of three Kazak Ordinaries that denounces the Pope’s Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia.4 This statement states that the Pope’s Exhortation (an exercise of the Authentic Magisterium) is causing “rampant confusion,” introduces “divorce in the life of the Church,” will spread the “plague of divorce,” is “alien” to the Church’s faith and Tradition, and it states in bold face that such papal teaching is “not licit.”

(e) he defies the “religious assent” demanded of him by the Church (see footnote 5)

(f) he openly promotes schism 5

In light of the preceding, it is abundantly evident that Archbishop Emeritus Viganò penned a decidedly harmful manifesto against the Roman Pontiff Francis at a time when it might inflict upon his pontificate and person the most possible damage. Happily, the great majority of bishops and faithful, including the most conservative Catholics, are not embracing the papal defiance of Viganò.

Now, as to why he has behaved in this uncharitable manner, from a practical angle, Viganò emerges a disgruntled former Vatican employee who has chosen to take a parting shot at the Pope in the hope of garnering support in his quest of directing the direction of the Church. From his manifesto it is evident that he, a man called by God to occupy a position of Church leadership, is to do so not to prefer his ideas of religion, but God’s idea of religion. Let us recall that Jesus candidly issued seven woes against the leaders of the Church of his day, i.e., the Scribes and Pharisees who interpreted and instructed the flock on the Law given to Moses. Oddly enough Viganò obtained his degree not in theology, but in interpreting and instructing the flock on the law. Jesus’ admonishing those in leadership is associated with the forgetting of a basic truth: if a man would teach others, he must himself first listen to God; if one fails to listen to God first, he may up erecting his own prejudices into universal principles and substituting his own ideas for God’s idea of religion.

With respect to the question of how God might consider Viganò’s approach of publicizing what he perceives to be the sins of the Pope and other prelates and seeking that he be deposed, I recall the following revelation of God the Father to St. Catherine of Siena:

“The reverence you pay to [priests] is not actually paid to them but to Me, in virtue of the Blood I have entrusted to their ministry. If this were not so, you should pay them as much reverence as to anyone else, and no more. It is this ministry of theirs that dictates that you should reverence them and come to them, not for what they are in themselves but for the power I have entrusted to them, if you would receive the Sacraments of the Church….

So the reverence belongs not to the ministers, but to Me and to this glorious Blood made one thing with me because of the union of divinity with humanity. And just as the reverence is done to me, so also is the irreverence, for I have already told you that you must not reverence them for themselves, but for the authority I have entrusted to them. Therefore you must not sin against them, because if you do, you are really sinning not against them but against me. This I have forbidden, and I have said that it is my will that no one should touch them.

For this reason no one has excuse to say, „I am doing no harm, nor am I rebelling against holy Church. I am simply acting against the sins of evil pastors.‟ Such persons are deluded, blinded as they are by their own selfishness…. It is Me they assault, just as it was Me they reverenced. To me redounds every assault they make on my ministers: derision, slander, disgrace, abuse. Whatever is done to them I count as done to Me….

By not paying Me reverence in the persons of My ministers, they have lost respect for the latter and persecuted them because of the many sins and faults they saw in them. If in truth the reverence they had for them had been for my sake, they would not have cut it off on account of any sin in them. For no sin can lessen the power of this sacrament, and therefore their reverence should not lessen either. When it does, it is against me they sin.” 6

From a prophetic perspective, it appears that the path Viganò has chosen is dangerously one of schism (see footnote 5) – a path that Jesus and his Blessed Mother warned us against in recent Church-approved prophetic revelations. Certainly Pope Francis is has limitations and imperfections like the rest of us – he makes mistakes and has publicly acknowledged as much. Nevertheless, given lack of evidence in Vigano’s manifesto, this is no cause to publicly tar and feather him in the name of God. God, who alone sees all of shortcomings, knows how to draw good even from such shortcomings.

Apropos of the warnings of Jesus and his Blessed Mother against a schism, consider that St. Leopold Mandic (1866-1942 A.D.), a Capuchin priest from Croatia, prophesied that during the tribulation the Church of the USA will create a schism by separating itself from the Church of Rome. He wrote to an American priest in 1939: “Be careful to preserve your faith, because in the future the Church in the U.S.A. will be separated from Rome.”

Sacred Scripture and approved prophetic revelations predict within the Church an imminent crisis. It will be precipitated by a split within the hierarchy of the Catholic Church and accompany the Roman Pontiff’s flight from Rome. God reveals through his prophet Zechariah:

3 The Authentic Magisterium elicits from all, including Viganò, “religious submission of the intellect and will” (Canon 752). 4 The Holy Father ordered his letter to the Argentine bishops regarding their interpretation of Amoris Laetitia to be published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, at the same time raising the status of that private communication to the level of an “Apostolic Letter” (Epistola Apostolica). According to a rescript also published in the Acta, the Holy Father’s letter and the bishops’ guidelines are both documents of the “Authentic Magisterium.”

5 “…schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him” (CCC, 2089; cf. CIC, can. 751); “The religious assent of the will and intellect is to be given in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Pontiff even when he is not speaking ex cathedra” (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vatican Council I, vol. II, Washington DC [1990], De perpetuitate primatus beati Petri in Romanis pontificibus, pp. cap. II-IV, p. 869).

6 Catherine of Siena; The Dialogue, New York: Paulist Press, 1980, art. 116.

“„Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who is close to me!‟ declares the Lord Almighty. Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered, and I will turn my hand against the little ones. I will strike the shepherd and the sheep shall be scattered.”7

Blessed Anna-Maria Taigi (1769-1837 A.D.) was exceptionally endowed with many supernatural revelations that are ecclesiastically approved. She accurately predicted the deaths of famous personages and many historical events. On one occasion, she said of Pope Leo XIII who lay on his deathbed, “the Pope will not die, but Monsignor Strambi should prepare himself since he has offered his life for the Pope and Our Lord has accepted his generous offering.” Miraculously, within a few days Pope Leo XIII, who was in the worst of health, made a total recovery, while Monsignor Strambi, who was enjoying the best of health, died. Blessed Anne- Maria prophesied the exile of the Roman Pontiff:

“Religion shall be persecuted, and priests massacred. Churches shall be closed, but only for a short time. The Holy Father shall be obliged to leave Rome.”

St. Pope Pius X (1835-1914 A.D.) reaffirms Blessed Anna-Maria’s vision:

“I saw one of my successors taking to flight over the bodies of his brethren. He will take refuge in disguise somewhere; and after a short retirement [exile] he will die a cruel death. The present wickedness of the world is only the beginning of the sorrows which must take place before the end of the world.”9

To conclude, I here recall Christ’s words to Peter who alone among the Apostles received direct knowledge from above: “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly father. And I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it” (Mt. 16.17-18).

In these words, Christ does not tell Peter to build his church, but that He himself will build his own Church, thereby implying that through Peter (who represents all future Pontiffs) Christ accomplishes his Divine Will within his Church by the power of the Holy Spirit whom he promised to send his Apostles to “lead them to all the truth” (Jn. 16:13). It is precisely this promised Holy Spirit who continues to inspire each Roman Pontiff to guide the Church in every generation. The Catholic Catechism relates as much with respect to papal infallibility which guides the Pope’s definitions: “Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, as assistance promised to him in the person of blessed Peter himself.”

The Lateran Council (1512-1517) sums it up as follows:

“The eternal Father, who will never abandon his flock up to the close of the age, so loved obedience… that… when he [his beloved Son] was about to depart from this world to the Father, he established Peter and his successors as his own representatives on the firmness of a rock. It is necessary to obey them, as the book of the Kings testifies, so that whoever does not obey, incurs death.”11

The 1st Vatican Council (1869-1870) sums it up in similar fashion:

“That which our Blessed Lord… established in the blessed Apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain forever, by Christ‟s authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time… Blessed Peter… received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ… to this day and forever he (Christ) lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors… whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains… the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So that what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon the guidance of the Church which he once received…

To him (the Roman Pontiff), in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our Lord Jesus Christ to tend, to rule and govern the universal Church… Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collective, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world… he is the supreme judge of the faithful…

The Roman Pontiff possesses… the supreme power of teaching… that saying of our Lord Jesus Christ, „You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church‟, cannot fail of its effect… the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished…”

Picking up the thread of the 5th Lateran and 1 st Vatican Councils, the 2nd Vatican Council (1962-1965) declares:

“The bishops, when they are teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to the divine and catholic truth… The religious assent of the will and intellect is to be given in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Pontiff even when he is not speaking ex cathedra.”

[1 R. Sipe’s website contains sensationalistic and cartoonish designs bearing anti-papal and anti-Vatican articles, e.g., “Vatican Masturbation”, “Pope has a Sex Problem,” “Pope’s Can Resign” [allusion to Viganò’s demand that Francis resign], “Pope Francis’ worst nightmare,” [blaming Pope Francis for sex scandals that preceded by decades his papacy], “Priests use magical powers to seduce”. This toxic website that Viganò promotes openly displays a graphic image is two men dressed as priests kissing.]

2 Archbishop Viganò’s job of Nuncio to the United States was no minor job. Nevertheless this was not enough, as he desired to become the head of the Vatican government, who normally becomes a cardinal, but he was denied both.

3 The Authentic Magisterium elicits from all, including Viganò, “religious submission of the intellect and will” (Canon 752).

4 The Holy Father ordered his letter to the Argentine bishops regarding their interpretation of Amoris Laetitia to be published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, at the same time raising the status of that private communication to the level of an “Apostolic Letter” (Epistola Apostolica). According to a rescript also published in the Acta, the Holy Father’s letter and the bishops’ guidelines are both documents of the “Authentic Magisterium.”

6 Catherine of Siena; The Dialogue, New York: Paulist Press, 1980, art. 116.

7 Zec 13.9; cf. also Zec 7:14; Ps 44:11; Jer 10:21, 23:2; Lam 4:13-16; Ez 6:8.

8 Blessed Anna-Maria Taigi, in Catholic Prophecy, Yves Dupont, The Coming Chastisement. Rockford, IL: Tan Books and Pub., 1973, p.45.

9 Saint Pope Pius X, 20th century, in Catholic Prophecy, Ibid., p.22.

10 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vatican Council II, vol. II, De ecclesia, (Lumen Gentium), op. cit., cap. III, art. 25, op. cit., p. 869.

11 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 5th Lateran Council, vol. I, op. cit., session 11 (circa modum praedicandi), p. 640.

12 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vatican Council I, vol. II, op. cit., pp. cap. II-IV, pp. 813-815. 13 Ibid., p. 869.

14 In his teaching authority, which is “supreme, full and immediate”,

the Roman Pontiff exercises a Magisterial office like no other in the Church. Indeed, when Christ constituted his divinely revealed truths once and for all in his one and unchanging Public Revelation (depositum fidei), he did so in order that Peter and those who occupy his Apostolic seat, would transmit this revelation under the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the college of bishops in union with him, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. For this reason, throughout the course of the centuries the Roman Pontiff and the bishops continue to “explicate” Christ’s one Public Revelation,

whereby all the members of the Church may happily enjoy the sure guarantee of his unfailing guidance and that of his successors to whom Jesus Christ gave the pledge of victory over the falsehoods of hell for all time.

14 Ibid., p. 923. 15 CCC, op. cit., 66.