Carlo Maria Viganò

On 24 September 2015 during his visit to the United States, Pope Francis met Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. On 2 October, Thomas Rosica, a Vatican spokesman, said that the office of Viganò had extended the invitation to Davis. Chief Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi depicted the meeting as one among many brief introductions rather than an audience.[31][32][33]

Juan Carlo Cruz, a survivor of sexual abuse who met with Pope Francis, alleged that Viganò "nearly sabotaged the visit" by having Francis meet Davis. "I didn't know who that woman was, and he snuck her in to say hello to me — and of course they made a whole publicity out of it," Pope Francis said, according to Cruz. Cruz stated that Pope Francis said that he was "horrified" and that he then "fired that nuncio."[34] Viganò replied by releasing a letter to LifeSiteNews, stating that "the pope knew very well who Davis was, and he and his close collaborators had provided the private audience."[35] Subsequently, Vatican spokesman Lombardi and Thomas Rosica confirmed that the evening prior to Francis' meeting with Davis, Viganò had indeed spoken "with the pope and his collaborators and received a consensus" regarding the meeting.[35] Shortly after the meeting, Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington informed a reporter that both he and Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, then-president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, had advised Archbishop Viganò against arranging the meeting.[36] Father Lombardi stated that Viganò had organized the meeting and "inserted it in the context of the pope's many and quick greetings at his departure from the nunciature," which "certainly did not allow the pope and his collaborators to realize the significance of this meeting."[37]

Viganò says that in 2007 he wrote a second memo that included material from clerical sexual abuse expert Richard Sipe.[39] Viganò says this led Pope Benedict XVI in 2009 or 2010 to place severe restrictions on McCarrick's movements and public ministry, not allowing him to venture beyond the seminary grounds where he was living, and not permitting him to say Mass in public.[39][45] Viganò states that he spoke to Pope Francis about McCarrick's behavior in June 2013 and informed him of the restrictions that Benedict XVI had imposed on him. Nevertheless, Francis allegedly removed these sanctions and made McCarrick "his trusted counselor," even though Francis "knew from at least June 23, 2013 that McCarrick was a serial predator. He knew that he was a corrupt man, he covered for him to the bitter end."[39][45]

In the letter containing these allegations, Viganò called on Francis and all others who covered up McCarrick's conduct to resign.[39][45] Viganò stated: "In this extremely dramatic moment for the universal church, he [Pope Francis] must acknowledge his mistakes and, in keeping with the proclaimed principle of zero tolerance, Pope Francis must be the first to set a good example to cardinals and bishops who covered up McCarrick's abuses and resign along with all of them... We must tear down the conspiracy of silence with which bishops and priests have protected themselves at the expense of their faithful, a conspiracy of silence that in the eyes of the world risks making the church look like a sect, a conspiracy of silence not so dissimilar from the one that prevails in the mafia."[46]

Amidst other instances of the Church's failure to follow through on allegations against the clergy, Francis convened a Meeting on the Protection of Minors in the Church from 21 to 24 February 2019,[47] which led to his issuing the motu proprio Vos estis lux mundi, which specified the responsibility of bishops in handling cases and in reporting.[48]

In his letter, Viganò accuses three consecutive Vatican secretaries of state, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, and Cardinal Pietro Parolin, of knowing about McCarrick's behavior but doing nothing about it.[49]

In his letter, Viganò names several high-ranking prelates who he says were aware of Pope Benedict's restrictions on McCarrick, including Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Cardinal William Levada, Cardinal Marc Ouellet, Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, Archbishop Ilson de Jesus Montanari, Cardinal Leonardo Sandri, Cardinal Fernando Filoni, Cardinal Angelo Becciu, and Bishop Robert McElroy. Viganò's letter says that these cardinals and prelates knew about McCarrick's sexual harassment of young adult seminarians; it does not say that anyone knew of McCarrick's sexual abuse of minors.[21]

Viganò also said that McCarrick "orchestrated" the appointments of Blase Cupich as Archbishop of Chicago and Joseph Tobin as Archbishop of Newark and Robert McElroy as Bishop of San Diego.[39][45]

The New York Times stated that Viganò's letter contained "unsubstantiated allegations and personal attacks," and described it as "an extraordinary public declaration of war against Francis' papacy at perhaps its most vulnerable moment." It said that during the time period that Viganò alleged McCarrick was subject to restrictions on his ministry, McCarrick continued to publicly celebrate Mass, and even joined with other bishops to present Pope Benedict a birthday cake in 2012.[45] One notable mass which McCarrick participated in occurred at the 2010 papal consistory where Donald Wuerl, his successor as Archbishop of Washington D.C., was made a cardinal.[50] McCarrick also made a public appearance at the Library of Congress in 2011 and joined other American bishops during their five-year "check-in" with Pope Benedict in January 2012.[50] He made several trips to the Vatican during this period as well,[50] and participated in a mass with other U.S. bishops at Saint Peter's tomb during the January 2012 visit.[51] However, McCarrick had declined numerous requests in the summer of 2010 to be interviewed by The Washington Post, which described his 80th birthday celebrations in July of that year as "uncharacteristically quiet."[52]

Viganò's defenders suggested that Benedict did not impose formal sanctions but instead made an informal request for McCarrick to assume a low profile and that he was then unwilling to enforce these restrictions. As evidence, they pointed to Benedict's other supposedly half-hearted attempts to discipline prelates accused of misconduct, the purportedly defiant behavior of McCarrick as an indicator that he could have ignored attempted restrictions, and contemporary media reports noting that McCarrick enjoyed a more visible role after Francis's election than he had while Benedict XVI was still pope.[53] A 2014 news article referred to McCarrick as "one of a number of senior churchmen who were more or less put out to pasture during the eight-year pontificate of Benedict XVI," adding that after the election of Pope Francis he was put "back in the mix." He engaged in a number of high-profile diplomatic missions early in Pope Francis' pontificate, often at the behest of the Vatican.[54][55] Archbishop Georg Gänswein, Pope Benedict's personal secretary and "trusted lieutenant," described reports that Pope Benedict confirmed Viganò's letter as "fake news."[50] On 7 October, after being asked to come forward by Viganò, Cardinal Marc Ouellet stated that he was aware of informal restrictions that Benedict XVI had asked McCarrick to abide by, but that there were no formal sanctions.[56]

Journalists at the time of the appointments of both Cupich and Tobin reported that McCarrick had recommended both for their positions as archbishop of Chicago and Newark, respectively, as consistent with the statement made in Viganò's testimony.[53] Journalists Tornielli and Valente reported that, contrary to what Viganò suggests in his testimony, Cupich was indeed on the list of candidates sent to Rome (he was third) and had the support of other U.S. bishops.[57] In 2014, McCarrick attempted to have a friend, Father Robert Furman, appointed Bishop of Fairbanks, Alaska, but the appointment went to a different person.[58] The Guardian stated "Linking Pope Francis with the protection of a sexual abuser is false. But the rage behind it will not go away."[59]

Viganò reported that the sanctions were instituted in 2009 and 2010, and that at that time, McCarrick was ordered to leave the grounds of Redemptoris Mater Archdiocesan Seminary in which he was living. Two sources present at a 2008 meeting between Sambi and McCarrick told Catholic News Agency that Sambi ordered him to move out of the seminary and testified that Sambi specifically stated that it was at the instruction of Pope Benedict XVI. McCarrick left the seminary in around early 2009, and subsequently moved into the parish of St. Thomas the Apostle in Woodley Park, Washington D.C.[60]

The Catholic magazine America proposed several reasons why some people find Vigano's letter credible, including Viganò's inside role in these matters as well as Pope Francis' alleged "lack of progress" and "lack of urgency" regarding sexual abuse; it also proposed several reasons why other people are skeptical about the letter, including public appearances made by McCarrick during the papacy of Pope Benedict and Viganò's "perceived hostility toward Pope Francis" for having removed him from his post in 2016, allegedly because Viganò was seen as having "become too enmeshed in U.S. culture wars, particularly regarding same-sex marriage."[21] Viganò's handling of the investigation into Archbishop John Nienstedt for misconduct with adult seminarians was also subject to renewed scrutiny.[21][22]

On 1 September 2018, The New York Times reported that Viganò had personally presented McCarrick with an award for missionary service in 2012 at the Pierre Hotel in Manhattan and praised him as "very much loved from us all."[50] The article said that "if Archbishop Viganò is to be believed, he was keeping a troubling secret." Conservative media countered by suggesting that he was unable to back out of the ceremony and exerted no control over it.[50] Viganò himself said that he "couldn't make the slightest impression that I had something against the cardinal in public."[61]

The Los Angeles Times quoted Villanova University professor of theology, Massimo Faggioli, "This letter has everything to do with factions in the church that are vying for power and influence,...You have a convergence of interests that is making this a huge mess in the U.S. Catholic Church."[62]

Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, released a statement declaring that Viganò's letter raised questions which "deserve answers that are conclusive and based on evidence. Without those answers, innocent men may be tainted by false accusation and the guilty may be left to repeat sins of the past."[63]

The McCarrick case and Viganò allegations, happening at about the same time as the conclusion of the Grand jury investigation of Catholic Church sexual abuse in Pennsylvania, which alleged systematic cover-up of clergy sex abuse by bishops in Pennsylvania over decades, have intensified tensions in the Catholic Church between ideological liberals and conservatives. In addition to a general call from Catholics across ideological boundaries for greater accountability and transparency within the Church, the allegations of sexual abuse have opened up ideological divisions within the Church. Many conservative Catholics have focused on the alleged role of homosexuality in clergy sex abuse and have expressed concerns that Pope Francis is not sufficiently strict in enforcing doctrinal orthodoxy, while many Catholic liberals have blamed the sex abuse scandals on what they perceive to be the excessively hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church and have called for the Church to be more welcoming and inclusive of homosexuals. Conservatives have often shown a willingness to accept at least some of Viganò's allegations, while liberals have more commonly criticized the letter and defended Pope Francis.[64][65][66][67][68]

Asked by a reporter to respond to Viganò's allegations, Pope Francis replied,

I read the statement this morning, and I must tell you sincerely that, I must say this, to you [the reporter] and all those who are interested. Read the statement carefully and make your own judgment. I will not say a single word about this. I believe the statement speaks for itself. And you have the journalistic capacity to draw your own conclusions. It's an act of faith. When some time passes and you have drawn your conclusions, I may speak. But, I would like your professional maturity to do the work for you. It will be good for you.[45][69][70][71][72][73]

According to veteran Vatican journalist John L. Allen Jr., the "clear suggestion" from Francis was that "if they did so, the charges would crumble under their own weight,"[74] while others saw the Vatican's silence and Viganò's strong insistence that documents related to the case be made public as indication that the latter was likely telling the truth.[53] On 28 August, Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois, said, in reference to Francis's statement, "Frankly, but with all due respect, that response is not adequate." He called on all Vatican officials, including Francis, to "make public the pertinent files indicating who knew what and when...and provide the accountability that the Holy Father has promised."[75] Bishop Marian Eleganti said that Francis's refusal "to say a single word about [the accusations against him] is a classic non-denial."[76]

On 3 September, the Pope said "With people who do not have good will, with people who seek only scandal, who seek only division, who seek only destruction, even within families," the answer is "silence. And prayer." Many found this to be a clear reference to his decision to remain silent about the scandal.[77][78] On 11 September, referring to the devil, Pope Francis said:

In these times, it seems like the Great Accuser has been unchained and is attacking bishops...True, we are all sinners, we bishops. He tries to uncover the sins, so they are visible in order to scandalize the people...The Great Accuser, as he himself says to God in the first chapter of the Book of Job, 'roams the earth looking for someone to accuse'.[79]

In an interview published on 28 May 2019, Francis directly addressed the accusations made in Viganò's letter for the first time. He stated that he "knew nothing" about McCarrick's conduct. Asked about Viganò's statement that he told Francis about McCarrick's behavior, he said: "I don't remember if he told me about this. If it's true or not. No idea! But you know that about McCarrick, I knew nothing. If not, I wouldn't have remained quiet, right?"[80]

Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, who had served as first counsellor at the nunciature in Washington, D.C., stated that "Viganò said the truth," but declined to elaborate further. In his letter, Viganò had cited Lantheaume as the one who told him about the alleged "stormy" encounter between McCarrick and Sambi in which Sambi informed McCarrick of the sanctions being placed on him.[49]

Thomas Olmsted, Bishop of Phoenix, stated that he had "always known and respected [Viganò] as a man of truthfulness, faith and integrity," and asked that the statements in his letter "be investigated thoroughly."[81] Similarly, David Konderla, Bishop of Tulsa, stated that Viganò's allegations would be "a good place to begin the investigations that must happen."[82] Joseph Strickland, Bishop of Tyler, went further, stating that he found Viganò's allegations "credible."[83] Salvatore Cordileone, Archbishop of San Francisco, said that Viganò was a man of "selfless dedication" with "integrity and sincere love of the Church." Cordileone also said that his calls for Pope Francis's resignation "must be taken seriously."[84]

Robert C. Morlino, Bishop of Madison, said that Viganò has "impeccable integrity" and he had "offered a number of concrete, real allegations in his recent document, giving names, dates, places, and the location of supporting documentation," and that these allegations justified a canonical investigation.[85] Morlino also expressed disappointment that Pope Francis had not given a direct response when asked about this matter, and accused the National Catholic Reporter of "leading the charge in a campaign of vilification against Archbishop Viganò."[85]

Paprocki called on all Vatican officials, including Francis, to "make public the pertinent files indicating who knew what and when...and provide the accountability that the Holy Father has promised."[75] Archbishop Paul Stagg Coakley professed to having "the deepest respect for Archbishop Viganó and his personal integrity" and called for an investigation and a "purification" of the Church.[86] Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan stated that there was "no reasonable and plausible cause to doubt the truth content of the document." He demanded "ruthlessness and transparency" in cleansing the Church of evils, particularly "homosexual cliques and networks" in the curia.[87]

Some American bishops were critical of Viganò's missive. Cardinal Joseph Tobin, Archbishop of Newark, released a statement criticizing Viganò's statement for "factual errors, innuendo and fearful ideology."[88] Cardinal Blase Cupich, Archbishop of Chicago, said the language of the letter seemed political: "It was so scattershot that it was hard to read if it was ideological in some ways, or it was payback to others for personal slights that he had because there were some people who in his past he felt had mistreated him."[89] Cupich said he was "taken aback" by the negative language Viganò used with regard to him.[89] Cupich described the letter as a distraction from the Church's "bigger agenda": "We have to speak about the environment, about the poor, we have to reach out to people who are marginalized in society. We cannot be distracted at this moment."[90] When asked about those criticizing Francis, he responded, "Quite frankly, they also don't like him because he's a Latino." While Pope Francis was born in Argentina, both of his parents immigrated to that country from Northern Italy.[91]

Robert McElroy, Bishop of San Diego, said that the letter, instead of seeking "comprehensive truth," showed "partisanship, division and distortion" in "its ideologically-driven selection of bishops who are attacked, in its clear efforts to settle old personal scores, in its omission of any reference to Archbishop Viganò's own massive personal participation in the covering up of sexual abuse by bishops, and most profoundly in its hatred for Pope Francis and all that he has taught."[92] Contrary to Viganò's statements, a spokesman for Wuerl stated that he had never received any information from Viganò concerning restrictions on McCarrick.[93] On 30 August, Wuerl wrote a letter to priests in the archdiocese saying, "We need to hold close in our prayers and loyalty our Holy Father, Pope Francis. Increasingly, it is clear that he is the object of concentrated attack."[94]

In an interview published on 27 November, Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Prefect Emeritus for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, criticized Viganò's language against Pope Francis, saying, "No one has the right to indict the pope or ask him to resign!" He said that these conversations "must take place in private, in the proper places, and without ever making a public controversy." Müller went on to say that such "attacks...end up questioning the credibility of the Church and her mission." He added that he is convinced that the Pope "is doing everything possible" to resolve the abuse scandal. Müller suggested that Pope Francis appoint a commission of cardinals to study the abuse scandal and called for unity amongst the Church's different theological wings.[95]

After the letter was published, Italian journalist Marco Tosatti said that he had helped Viganò write and edit the letter. Tosatti stated that Viganò "had called him a few weeks ago out of the blue asking to meet, and then proceeded to tell him the information that became the basis of the testimony." When they met, Viganò brought a draft of the document, and then Tosatti helped Viganò rewrite and edit it. Tosatti said the reason Viganò wrote the letter now was that "77 is an age where you start preparing yourself...he couldn't have a clear conscience unless he spoke." After the document was completed, Tosatti located publications that were willing to publish the letter: the Italian daily La Verità, the English-language National Catholic Register and LifeSiteNews, and the Spanish website InfoVaticana.[96]

On 27 September 2018, Viganò released a follow-up letter (dated 29 September). In this letter, Viganò explained why he had broken the "pontifical secret" by publishing his first letter. He criticized Francis for not having responded directly to the original letter, but instead having compared his critics to Satan. Viganò stated that it was Cardinal Marc Ouellet who had informed him of the sanctions that Benedict XVI had allegedly placed on McCarrick, and urged Ouellet to publicly confirm this statement.[97] He wrote, "Neither the pope, nor any of the cardinals in Rome have denied the facts I asserted in my testimony."[97]

On 7 October, Cardinal Ouellet replied to Viganò in a public letter.[56][98] He confirmed that during the papacy of Benedict XVI, McCarrick "had been requested not to travel or to make public appearances", but he insisted that these restrictions placed on McCarrick should not be seen as "sanctions" or "formally imposed", referring to them rather as "conditions and restrictions that he had to follow on account of some rumors about his past conduct." He defended the decision not to impose formal sanctions on him, stating that this was a matter of "prudence" as there was not yet sufficient evidence to implicate him. Ouellet also confirmed that in 2011, he had "verbally" told Viganò about the restrictions on McCarrick. However, he argued that as these were not formal sanctions, Viganò's letter was "false" for saying that Benedict imposed sanctions on McCarrick which Francis subsequently lifted.[56] In other passages, Ouellet called Viganò's accusations "far-fetched," "blasphemous," "incomprehensible," and "abhorrent."[98]

Many journalists and analysts have said that, despite denouncing the Archbishop, Ouellet confirmed in substance one of Viganò's key statements:[99][100] Restrictions, even if non-canonical penalties, were imposed on McCarrick because the Vatican authorities were not only aware of the accusations but believed them to be true, even if they lacked probative evidence.[101]

On 19 October, Viganò released a third letter in which he alleged that, despite Ouellet's denials, for years "the Holy See was aware of a variety of concrete facts" concerning McCarrick's activities, and that documents proving this allegation are kept in the Vatican Archives. Concerning Ouellet's response to the Archbishop's second letter, which included heavy criticism, Viganò said, "Cardinal Ouellet concedes the important claims."[102][103] He denounced the "conspiracy of silence" in the Church hierarchy which he believes oppresses victims and protects abusers. Viganò ended the letter by urging other bishops to come forward with what they knew: "You too are faced with a choice. You can choose to withdraw from the battle, to prop up the conspiracy of silence and avert your eyes from the spreading of corruption or choose to speak."[103] Eight days later, Cardinal Agostino Cacciavillan stated that he received a complaint about McCarrick in 1994 while serving as papal nuncio, and then forwarded it to Cardinal John O'Connor of New York, who supposedly conducted an investigation that yielded nothing. Cacciavillan said that he did not attempt to directly contact the Vatican.[104]

On 10 January 2019, The Washington Post published a story stating that Wuerl, despite his past denials, was aware of allegations against McCarrick in 2004 by former priest Robert Ciolek and reported them to the Vatican. Both the Diocese of Pittsburgh and the Diocese of Washington acknowledged that Wuerl knew about and had reported Ciolek's allegation to the Vatican.[105]

On 14 January, Viganò urged McCarrick to publicly repent for his actions, telling him that his "eternal salvation is at stake." He continued, "Time is running out. But you can confess and repent of your sins, crimes and sacrileges, and do so publicly, since they have themselves become public."[106]

In February 2019, French author Frédéric Martel affirmed that Pope Francis's aides told him that Viganò had informed Francis about allegations involving seminarians but that Francis had dismissed them. According to Martel, "when the Pope dismissed the allegations, his entourage indicated to me that 'Francis was initially informed by Viganò that Cardinal McCarrick had had homosexual relations with over-age seminarians, which was not enough to condemn him.'"[107]

On 28 May 2019, correspondence obtained by Crux shows that Benedict XVI imposed travel restrictions on McCarrick in 2008, as Viganò said. However, McCarrick gradually began to resume travelling. Correspondence also indicates that, contrary to Wuerl's denials, he was aware of the restrictions imposed on McCarrick. McCarrick writes that he discussed the restrictions with Wuerl in 2008, saying that his "help and understanding is, as always, a great help and fraternal support to me." However, a spokesperson for Wuerl denied that he had any such knowledge.[58]

In 2019, Viganò gave his first extended interview since he released his allegations by corresponding through email with The Washington Post. He accused Pope Francis of defrocking McCarrick without a trial in order to avoid the possibility of having other bishops who knew about or covered up for McCarrick implicated. "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," he said.[108]

In an interview from September 2019, McCarrick, who continued to maintain his innocence, commented on Viganò's allegations. "He was talking as a representative of the far right, I think. I don't want to say he's a liar, but I think some of the bishops have said that he was not telling the truth," he said.[109]

A report released by the Vatican on November 10, 2020 included additional information about reports surrounding McCarrick's behavior. The report states that John Paul II had heard rumors about McCarrick engaging in sexual misconduct but did not believe them. It largely supports Viganò's contention about restrictions being imposed under the papacy of Benedict XVI, stating that Benedict had received a complaint concerning sexual molestation by McCarrick against a seminarian and that the Vatican Office for Bishops attempted to impose restrictions on his public activities but that he refused to abide by them. The report singles out Viganò by stating that he called for an "exemplary measure" against McCarrick while working for the Office of the Secretariat of State, but says that Benedict decided to keep the restrictions private. The report mostly fails to support the accusations levied by Archbishop Viganò against Pope Francis. It says that Francis, before becoming pope, had heard of allegations against McCarrick but believed them to be rejected by John Paul II, and that he had heard rumors of immoral sexual behavior by McCarrick but that he did not receive documentation about it until 2017, and that he did not learn of any allegation of McCarrick abusing minors until 2018. It refutes the idea that Francis made McCarrick an important advisor or that he sought to cover for him.[110][111]