Vigano: One Year Later
One year ago, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, the former Apostolic Nuncio of the United States (think chief diplomat) released a testimony that shook the Church. In it, he alleged that the then Archbishop McCarrick’s (no longer a Cardinal) predatory ways were not only long known by the Vatican, but that they had actually secretly punished him for his crimes, forcing him not just into retirement from his episcopal role, but from public ministry entirely. This punishment was known by Pope Francis and everyone around him in the Vatican when they allowed McCarrick to be one of the pope’s inner circle, a trusted adviser, and someone intimately involved with the Pope’s China endeavors. One year later, where are we?
The first argument that should be rejected immediately is the idea that Vigano’s testimony was irrelevant and doesn’t matter. This was tried originally by the Pope’s inner circle and a cadre of writers. That many of these same voices are now out calling it a “failed coup” daily in the runup to the anniversary tells you even they don’t believe that. So with that out of the way, the question naturally becomes: were the allegations true?
On this, there is little doubt. Vigano spoke truthfully. We know, from McCarrick’s own correspondence, he was punished by Pope Benedict, and that this punishment involved a functional end to his public ministry. We know that McCarrick attempted to negotiate for exceptions to these restrictions for important events. Yet this was clearly a punishment. It was not “informal”, they were not “suggestions to keep a low profile”, they were a stripping of public ministry. Even without that, the timeline established is clear and unmistakable: McCarrick leaves the seminary he was staying at right around the timeline Vigano established. Suddenly he stops appearing in public at Catholic events he had been attending his entire tenure as a bishop. Newspaper reports speculate on him being put “out to pasture” by Pope Benedict.
We also know that senior Churchmen flagrantly lied in public statements about the matter. Cardinal Oullete (who as head of the Congregation for Bishops would have had access to all the material about McCarrick) wrote an open letter vigorously denying (although as it later became clear, that denial was very carefully worded) Vigano’s allegations. Cardinal Wuerl (McCarrick’s ordinary after his retirement) stated numerous times he had zero knowledge of any restrictions, or even of McCarrick abusing anyone. Both of these statements later turned out to be false. In the case of the latter, not only was Wuerl aware of abuse…. he reported an allegation of abuse about McCarrick he received.
When faced with overwhelming evidence the allegations were true, critics of Vigano have tried to ignore this a number of ways. The first is the “failed coup” narrative. While Vigano did indeed call upon the pope to resign, in order for it to be a coup, you need a few things: you need conspirators, and you need a replacement to seize the throne. Those parts have never been discussed, because it wasn’t a coup. It was a whistle blower blowing the whistle, and wanting his boss to resign. That’s what whistle blowers do.
The second is to attempt to impugn the character of the whistle blower. One need not view Vigano a saint. Here it can be freely granted his past behavior was far from admirable. He knew about all of these things, and stayed silent. Worse, he accommodated himself to that reality on several occasions, not just with McCarrick, but with other corrupt prelates. He held back further accusations to release them later, in what looks far more like a political ploy. All of this can be freely granted. What does this show? That he’s human. Whistle blowers are normally people who helped prop up something bad for awhile, and then decided enough was enough. What matters is the truth of the allegations, and so far, his story checks out.
I said before that his testimony mattered. How did it matter? I think it mattered in a few ways that aren’t really discussed, and may not be readily apparent.
- It exposed a double system of justice for priests and bishops. McCarrick was far from the first bishop to be privately sentenced over sex abuse. There were several instances over the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. This juridical system occurred in secret and with zero transparency. The exposure of this system forced the Vatican to change. That change (from the motu proprio Vos Estis) falls quite short of real reform, but its clear the ball has started rolling, and no Pope (present of future) can roll it back, even if that is what he were inclined to do.
- A substantial shift in how Catholic media covered the abuse scandals occurred. It is clear the original media strategy of the pope and his allies was to have secular and catholic media carpet bomb Vigano with a character assassination campaign. There were whispers (and some not whispers) to media to dig up dirt on Vigano’s personal life, the feud with his brother over their fathers estate, etc. When a few media outlets reported on some of these issues, the pope’s supporters came out and declared Vigano “refuted”, and everyone should just go home. The media took were quite surprised by this, with many reporters feeling they were trying to be used as pawns. Reporters were stunned when the Pope refused to answer whether or not the accusations were true. Up until this point, media relations between Rome and the press (especially Catholic press) could be described as worshipful. That ended. Several of the big breaks in the abuse scandal have occurred through Catholic press, something that is decidedly different than in previous eras. The pope is still their pope, but journalists no longer give him the benefit of the doubt, and they likely never will with a future pope. That’s a substantial shift that we have yet to fully grasp.
- If Vigano’s goal was to force Francis to resign, it clearly didn’t work. Yet I think there was an unintended consequence. He might have missed the target, but he hit something far larger, and ultimately far more substantial. his testimony didn’t just hit the pope, it hit an entire way of understanding Catholicism. Over the last century, but especially after the pontificate of John Paul II, the perception of Catholicism became increasingly tied up into the person who occupied the papal office. The Catholic Church was an expression of his will. Every decision of importance was removed from local authority, and centralized in Rome. It was only a matter of time before this came crashing down, and that moment would be once the occupants image was of a man complicit in enabling and helping abusers evade consequences for their crimes. Vigano’s testimony suggested precisely that. The failure to respond to it let that image harden. Later allegations of abuse by Francis loyalists (such as Bishop Zanchetta of the Pope’s home country of Argentina) were met not with shock, but with “remember McCarrick, does this surprise you?” Papal loyalists do not like this reality. Yet it is reality. Future popes will not have the goodwill Francis once had, the presumption that everything they did deserves the benefit of the doubt.
- It exposed a populist underbelly many were not even aware existed. The McCarrick saga unleashed a laity that has simply had enough of the abuse scandals, and the complicity of senior church officials (and potentially even popes) in enabling and covering up this abuse. In the US, Catholics in certain dioceses are withholding donations to their parish. Across the entire world, Catholics are far more comfortable with using state power to punish their leaders, a view that is as dramatic as it is potentially dangerous. The debate is no longer over whether or not the laity will be involved in future reforms of governance (a position that was acceptable within the past few years in Catholic orthodoxy), but what role they will take. It is now understood by everyone but a few senior leaders that the way out of this crisis is not to just let the bishops and pope fix everything behind closed doors. Consider me also skeptical that once we get a “better pope” or “better bishop” donations will return in those areas. Catholics are going to have to figure out how to be charitable, and how to manage charity when it occurs outside of the parish. That populist wave is showing no indications of subsiding.
Vigano’s testimony did not cause a lot of these things. They had been building for some time. Yet it is clear that Vigano’s letter was a point of no return. A previous way of doing business was ended by his blowing the whistle. What comes next is anybody’s guess. Yet attempts by the pope and his loyalists to turn back the clock failed, and they will continue to fail. They deserve to fail.
