One thing that stands out to me is that at this stage there's a lack of hard evidence for many of the allegations which leaves Archbishop Vigaṇ's testimony somewhat vulnerable and the whole matter degenerating into "he said" "he said". (This maybe what Pope Francis is alluding to in his apparent dismissiveness?) Also what stands out is the apparent lack of records and documentation in so many instances relating to very important matters such as serious allegations and placing sanctions on Cardinals, etc. So much of the processes just seem to rely on people having cconversations and perhaps taking personal notes or memos. There seems huge transparency and accountability issues right there, let alone the accuracy of specific allegations!
To a large extent, it all depends on whether the opinion offered by Fr Carlos Martins in the second article is correct. He posted to Facebook: I just spent the last two hours on the phone with a friend in the Vatican Curia. He said that the news of Archbishop Vigaṇ has hit the Curia like an atomic bomb. Two things are universally noted regarding Vigaṇ: 1) He is highly respected as a professional, and 2) His Curial positions gave him clear access to the damning information he reported. In other words, he is not a hack, and he is not relying on rumor. This makes his report absolutely worthy of belief.
A fairly good Devil's Advocate analysis of Archbishop Vigaṇ...
https://cruxnow.com/news-analysis/2018/08/27/making-sense-of-mccarrick-cover-up-charges-against-pope-francis/
Fills in more of the background and paints a disturbing and somewhat plausible picture..
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/pope-francis-mccarrick-gay-mafia-bombshell-vigano/
Responses « Back to index | View thread »