By John L. Allen Jr.
DUBLIN (Crux) – As Pope Francis wrapped up a 32-hour visit to Ireland on Sunday, the cold, windy and rainy weather undoubtedly put a damper on the turnout. Officials had expected around a half-million people to flock to Dublin’s Phoenix Park for the concluding Mass, but in the end the Vatican said 300,000 people turned out.
Yet, as it turns out, the meteorological storms Pope Francis faced paled in comparison to the metaphorical ones breaking last Sunday, in part related to his overall handling of the clerical sexual abuse crisis, but more specifically to an astonishing claim by a former papal ambassador in the U.S. that Pope Francis had lifted restrictions imposed on Cardinal Theodore McCarrick under Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, despite being informed of misconduct concerns against McCarrick in June 2013.
Aboard the papal plane on Sunday, Pope Francis basically challenged reporters to judge the accusations for themselves – the clear suggestion being that if they did so, the charges would crumble under their own weight.
Assuming journalists take the pontiff up on his offer, so far we have only the word of that former ambassador, Italian Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, that he personally informed Pope Francis on June 23, 2013, of the sanctions imposed on Cardinal McCarrick by Pope Benedict.
Over and over again on Sunday, I was pressed by colleagues and ordinary folk alike for an answer to one burning question: “How seriously should we take this?”
Here’s my bottom line response: Take it seriously, but with a large grain of salt.
One certainly can’t dismiss the charge, if for no other reason than never before has a former papal ambassador accused a sitting pope of complicity in what would amount, if true, to a criminal cover-up.
To be clear, this isn’t some anonymous figure claiming to have sent the pope a letter. Archbishop Viganò was the pope’s man in America for five years. Over that time he certainly had the means and opportunity to inform the pope of things if he wanted to.
Further, there’s a symbolic dimension to the situation. Pope Francis has been charged with mishandling an abuse allegation, and if there isn’t a credible and transparent effort to get to the bottom of things, then the pontiff’s rhetoric in Ireland about being “firm and decisive in the pursuit of truth and justice” might ring hollow.
On the other hand, there are at least four reasons why a large grain of salt is warranted. To begin with, the 11-page statement Archbishop Viganò released to reporters probably undercut his own credibility in key respects. The letter contains charges of some form of wrongdoing or questionable behavior against no fewer than 32 senior churchmen, and in most cases Archbishop Viganò acknowledges that his comments are based on no more than supposition and/or connecting the dots.
When anyone hurls around accusations quite so lightly, it’s difficult to know how seriously any one ought to be taken.
Second, Viganò has a history. He was a key player in the “Vatileaks” scandal under Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, which pivoted on confidential documents being stolen and leaked to the press by a papal butler. Among them were two letters by Archbishop Viganò to Pope Benedict and Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican’s then-Secretary of State, protesting his impending appointment as ambassador in the U.S. on the grounds that he wanted to remain in the government of the Vatican City State and continue battling financial corruption.
Then, as now, the letters contained a mix of factual detail with innuendo and conspiracy theories, and it proved arduous – in some cases, basically impossible – to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Third, Archbishop Viganò arguably undercut his credibility by not dealing with his own record on the abuse issue. According to a 2014 memo, first made public in 2016, Archbishop Viganò as nuncio quashed an investigation – going as far as demanding that evidence be destroyed – into then-Archbishop John Nienstedt of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Minn., who was being investigated for misconduct with seminarians as well as cover-up of sexual abuse. In 2015, then-Archbishop Nienstedt stepped down as head of the archdiocese.
By not at least trying to explain his actions in that case, Archbishop Viganò left open some serious question marks.
Fourth, it may be difficult for many observers to escape the impression that all this was orchestrated with a political agenda in mind. In the statement on former Cardinal McCarrick, Archbishop Viganò clearly betrays a generally conservative political bias, among other things in his frequently derisive commentary on prelates and clerics he finds to be excessively “pro-gay” – such as an offhand claim that Italian Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio and Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia (both former or current Vatican officials) “belong to the homosexual current in favor of subverting Catholic doctrine on homosexuality.”
There’s also the question of why the archbishop’s statement appeared on the day Pope Francis was struggling to address the abuse scandals in Ireland. Adding all that up, the statement’s release can’t help but strike some as an orchestrated maneuver.
(As a footnote, if this was indeed orchestrated, it had to be a pretty off-key orchestra. Had Viganò restricted himself to releasing a crisp, one-page statement focusing solely on the charge against Francis, a former nuncio’s standing would have guaranteed a wide echo. As things stand, it’s understandably difficult for many people to know quite what to make of it.)
“I believe the statement speaks for itself, and you have enough journalistic capacity to reach the conclusions,” Pope Francis told reporters on Sunday.
Time will tell what conclusions are indeed reached, but a sober point of departure right now probably would blend genuine curiosity with healthy skepticism.
