McCarrick Report Is Mainly About Discrediting Archbishop Viganò

The McCarrick report is “fraudulent” and and attempt to “discredit” him, Archbishop Carlo Viganò writes in a November 10 statement.

Not without reason, he calls it “The Viganò Report” because of its “suggestive reconstruction” of the facts. Incredibly, the report mentions Viganò’s name more than 300 times, compared to John Paul II: 135x; Benedict XVI: 96x; Francis: 153x and Cardinal Wuerl: 98x.

On too many pages it is about the relationship between McCarrick and then US Nuncio Viganò and is seemingly more interested in attacking Viganò’s 2018 statement than in unearthing the McCarrick case. Some claims of the report:

• At a 2012 dinner in Manhattan, Nuncio Viganò called McCarrick “loved by us all” and later expressed warmth and affection towards him behind the scenes. He wrote several times very friendly to McCarrick in keeping with his diplomatic role as the Pope's representative.

• In his 2018 statement Viganò supposed that Cardinal Sodano appointed the ultraliberal McCarrick to Washington while according to the report “John Paul II made the decision personally.”

• When he was an official in the Secretariat of State, Viganò wrote two memoranda in 2006 and 2008 about accusations surrounding McCarrick. Then Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone took the matter to Cardinal Re and to Benedict XVI who asked McCarrick in 2008 to withdraw from the public eye.

• Viganò wrote in 2018 that his two memoranda were never returned to him with any actual decision. The report replies that the memorandum was reviewed by his superiors Sandri and Bertone who consulted with Cardinal Re who took measures in June 2008 and not - as Viganò said - in 2009 or 2010.

• Bertone said that McCarrick forcefully denied although Viganò's information was "possible" but could not be proven.

• When Viganò was US Nuncio a priest from Metuchen, a former diocese of McCarrick, informed Viganò of a lawsuit alleging that McCarrick engaged in sexual misconduct in 1991. Viganò informed Cardinal Ouellet who asked him in 2012 to investigate the matter but Viganò “did not take these steps” and never contacted the priest who waited in vain, the report writes.

• The report attempts to deny that Viganò personally informed Francis about the McCarrick case in 2013: “no records support Viganò's account and evidence as to what he said is sharply disputed.” It whitewashes Francis by claiming that until 2017, no on provided him with any documentation regarding allegations against McCarrick.

• Viganò said in 2018 that the US-Nuncios Montalvo and Sambi informed the Vatican about McCarrick’s “gravely immoral behaviour with seminarians and priests.” However, the report answers that both claimed they never found clear evidence against McCarrick and called the accusations “neither definitely proven nor completely groundless.”

• Archbishop Viganò wrote 2018 that it was “certain” that Benedict XVI had imposed sanctions on Cardinal McCarrick including a ban to celebrate Mass. Playing on words, the report claims that the instructions given to McCarrick were not “sanctions” as McCarrick was never forbidden to celebrate Mass in public nor prohibited from giving lectures or from travelling.

• As a Nuncio, Viganò reportedly took notice of McCarrick’s travel activities to Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and the Far East but Viganò never took action what would be inconsistent with the claim of canonical sanctions issued by Benedict XVI.

What to make of this and similar pictures
la verdad prevalece
Perhaps if you see an image of Jesus smiling with Judas, you will also blame Jesus for Judas' betrayal?
Unfortunately, Sandro Magister was rubbing his hands with glee as he pointed out the criticism (false though it was) of Archbishop Vigano. Yet, Magister failed to point out that the fact that Pope Francis was found to have been well aware of what was going with McCarrick––the very point being made by Vigano, and the reason why he had to go into hiding for his safety.
The whistleblower is always attacked; while the truly guilty – simply deny.
“Instructions” limiting McCarrick’s activity were called “proscriptions” and “directives.” McCarrick planned to “appeal” them. Though not legally binding, were they morally binding?
They forgot to mention that pope Benedict left bergoglio a dossier with all the information about the criminal acts of mccarrick with boys were exposed and bergoglio knew mccarrick was suspended by pope benedict and he reinstated him and let him name bishops and cardinals in usa. And organize the china deal.
If Mr. Trump fails to win re-election, Archbishop Vigano won't need the "McCarrick Report" to discredit him. His own predictions guaranteeing such a victory will have done a much more thorough job.
la verdad prevalece
Damian Thompson: “My instant reaction to the # McCarrickReport: its chief purpose is to obscure the shameful role played by Pope Francis, who rehabilitated McCarrick and his cronies because they were useful to him, and acted only when the media forced him to”
Sodomitical gang members have been protected.
Full text of Viganò:

Today the official Report of the Holy See regarding the McCarrick case has been made public. Before I express myself on its merit, I will take time to analyze its content.
However, I cannot fail to note the surreal operation of mystification regarding who are the ones responsible for covering up the scandals of the deposed American cardinal, and at the same time I cannot …More
Full text of Viganò:

Today the official Report of the Holy See regarding the McCarrick case has been made public. Before I express myself on its merit, I will take time to analyze its content.
However, I cannot fail to note the surreal operation of mystification regarding who are the ones responsible for covering up the scandals of the deposed American cardinal, and at the same time I cannot help expressing my indignation in seeing the same accusations of cover up being made against me, when in fact I repeatedly denounced the inaction of the Holy See in the face of the gravity of the accusations concerning McCarrick’s conduct.
An unprejudiced commentator would note the more than suspicious timing of the report’s publication, as well as the attempt to throw discredit upon me, accused of disobedience and negligence by those who have every interest in delegitimizing the one who brought to light an unparalleled network of corruption and immorality. The effrontery and fraudulent character shown on this occasion would seem to require, at this point, that we call this suggestive reconstruction of the facts “The Viganò Report,” sparing the reader the unpleasant surprise of seeing reality adulterated once again. But this would have required intellectual honesty, even before love for justice and the truth.
Unlike many characters involved in this story, I do not have any reason to fear that the truth will contradict my denunciations, nor am I in any way blackmailable. Anyone who launches unfounded accusations with the sole purpose of distracting the attention of public opinion will have the bitter surprise of finding that the operation conducted against me will not have any effect, other than giving further proof of the corruption and bad faith of those who for too long have been silent, made denials, and turned their gaze elsewhere, who today must be held accountable. The Vatican fiction continues.

Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
November 10, 2020
Che lost his credibility, no Catholic trusts and listens to this "liar" (accused by Abp. Vigano) any more. Please God, put him away and give us a new holy pope.
Cardinal John O’Connor wrote Pope John Paul in 1999: "I can conscience, recommend His Excellency, Archbishop McCarrick for promotion to higher office."
Alex A
I don't doubt the honesty of Cdl. John O'Connor, with respect to the quote you cite referencing his recommendation to Pope John Paul, however, it is also painfully obvious, that there was no recommendation to initiate canonical proceedings against McCarrick, one wonders why not? The emoji should have been; 😭