7 Reasons Why I Believe Archbishop Vigano’s Accusations To Be Credible


the letter itself:


Sure, but there are still problems with Vigano’s story. For example:

  1. There’s probably no written record of these sanctions. Benedict told Bertone to do something, but who knows what Bertone actually did? Similarly, who knows if the nuncio actually did what Bertone told him to do?

  2. The sanctions were clearly not enforced, because McCarrick was parading around the Vatican while Benedict was pope.

  3. We still don’t know 1) how Francis became aware of the sanctions or 2) what he was told about McCarrick’s crimes. If there was no record of what happened (which seems likely), it’s entirely possible that Francis didn’t know why, exactly, McCarrick had been sanctioned. That matters a lot, because there’s an important difference between having an affair (immoral) and committing sexual assault (worse, and also illegal).

  4. The claim that one retired cardinal, who couldn’t even vote at the 2013 conclave, controlled all of Francis’ episcopal appointments in the US is just not believable. That’s what makes the letter look politically motivated. It doesn’t just harm a pope who Vigano dislikes, it undermines the legitimacy of a number of bishops who Vigano and his allies also dislike.

Vigano telling the truth (if indeed he is) isn’t the end of the story.


I am not good at posting links so I am hoping this works. It is a clip of McCarrick speaking about Pope Francis soon after he became pope. He seems to be very influential among the cardinals at least. According to his own words, no one gave Bergoglio a shot at winning until he talked the conclave up. If someone truly has that much power and influence over the other cardinals, I don’t see why it would be hard to think he couldn’t influence the pope as well. Especially if the pope felt obligated to thank him for coordinating his election.


If there was a kingmaker at the 2013 conclave, it was Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, the former Archbishop of Westminster who died last year. This has been well-documented. McCarrick wasn’t even there.


I seem to remember seeing him on the news at the conclave. He didn’t vote (too old) but I am nearly 100% sure he was there and was quite vocal on the news while he was there. And obviously on the video he says so in his own words. Can you confirm he was not there?


You’re right: he was physically present, but too old to vote. Still, every account of the conclave casts Murphy-O’Connor as the kingmaker. McCarrick might very well have supported Bergoglio, but Bergoglio went into the conclave with a substantial support base (he placed second to Benedict in 2005), so that’s not surprising. In any case, my point is that McCarrick wasn’t Bergoglio’s most influential supporter, or even his most influential American supporter.

Also, I don’t know if you’re American, but I’m not, and I didn’t see McCarrick on the news. I saw mostly Canadian cardinals (that’s where I’m from), and also lots of Dolan and O’Malley. This isn’t definitive proof of anything, but it’s not surprising that the American media chose to follow the American cardinals around.

Thanks for the correction!


Yes I’m American.

I really was curious about whether he really was there or not. It is beginning to get hard to make sense of any of this. I was truly questioning my memory.


This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.