Update: (10:00 pm EST, August 27, 2018: This post now includes, below, the full statement by Archbishop Viganò. All emphasis in that text is in the original.)
Update #2 (5:00pm EST, August 28, 2018: LifeSiteNews.com has posted two letters directly related to Archbishop Viganò’s August 26th statement: a letter from the two auxiliary bishops to Cardinal Ouellet is available here, and Archbishop Viganò’s letter to the Cardinal is available here.)
In an August 26th written statement seen by some media outlets, including CWR, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò responded to reports that he ordered a stop to an investigation of then-Archbishop John Nienstedt of St. Paul and Minneapolis. Viganò flatly denies these assertions, stating, “These accusations – that I would have ordered the two auxiliary bishops of Minneapolis to close the nvestigation on the life of archbishop Nienstedt – are false.”
The charges against Vigano have circulated for years but his recent criticism of an alleged Vatican and U.S. Catholic coverup of Archbishop McCarrick’s reported sexual misconduct have brought the charges back into general discussion.
According to veteran Vatican reporter John Allen, Jr., in an August 27th CRUX article, “Viganò arguably undercut his credibility by not dealing with his own record on the abuse issue.” Allen then summarizes the central criticism:
According to a 2014 memo, first made public in 2016, 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, who was being investigated for misconduct with seminarians as well as cover-up of sexual abuse. In 2015, Nienstedt stepped down as head of the archdiocese.
Viganò, in his statement, says that in April 2014 he was given affidavits containing accusations that Nienstedt had an affair with a member of the Swiss guard while serving in the Vatican two decades ago. Viganò says that an inquiry had been conducted by private investigators who were working for a Minneapolis law firm, Greene Espel, that was part of a pro-“same-sex marriage” coalition. According to Vigano, the inquiry had been conducted in a manner he deemed “unbalanced” and with a “prosecutorial style”. The investigators, Viganò says, wished to immediately investigate the pontifical Swiss guard without first interviewing Nienstedt. Viganò says he suggested that Nienstedt be first heard out before further steps be taken: “To the bishops who came at the nunciature on April 12, 2014 I suggested to tell the Greene Espel lawyers that it appeared to me appropriate that archbishop Nienstedt be heard before taking this step – audiatur et altera pars – which they had not yet done. The bishops accepted my suggestion.”
Viganò denies that he said the inquiry should stop or that any documents be destroyed: “I never told anyone that Greene Espel should stop the inquiry, and I never ordered any document be destroyed: any statement to the contrary is false.”
On July 20, 2016, the New York Times published a story by Laurie Goodstein and Richard Pérez-Peña that reported Viganò had “quashed an independent investigation in 2014 into sexual and possible criminal misconduct by Archbishop John C. Nienstedt of St. Paul and Minneapolis and ordered church officials to destroy a letter they wrote to him protesting the decision, according to a memo made public on Wednesday.” The memo in question was written by Fr. Dan Griffith who, the Times reported, “wrote that the ambassador’s order to call off the investigation and destroy evidence amounted to ‘a good old fashioned cover-up to preserve power and avoid scandal.'”
Viganò, in his statement, says that Griffith was not present at the meeting at the nunciature, which included the archbishop and the two auxiliary bishops. It was Griffith, writes Viganò, who had retained Greene Espel to investigate Nienstedt on behalf of the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis.
The Times, in its 2014 report, stated, “The document offers a grave indictment of the conduct of the Vatican’s ambassador, and will probably put pressure on Pope Francis to discipline him and Archbishop Nienstedt.” Viganò states that on July 21, 2016, the nuncio in Washington, DC, Archbishop Christophe Pierre—who had succeeded Viganò three months prior after Viganò had reached the traditional retirement age of 75—was ordered by Pope Francis, via Cardinal Parolin, to immediately open an investigation into Viganò’s alleged coverup.
Viganò says that an American lawyer, Mr. Jeffrey Lena, working for the Holy See, acquired documents from the Congregation for Bishops upholding Viganò’s account of events. Mr. Lena delivered a report to Pope Francis, according to Viganò, but the Vatican did not make any statement refuting what was reported by the New York Times. Viganò further says that a report was also given by the nunciature to Cardinal Parolin, and that report is on file at the Secretariat of State and at the nunciature in Washington, DC.
Viganò concludes by stating that he asked both Archbishop Pierre and Archbishop Hebda to correct Griffith’s memo: “On January 28, 2017 I wrote to both Archbishop Pierre and to Archbishop Hebda (who had succeeded Nienstedt) asking them to publicly correct the memorandum of father Griffith. In spite of repeated emails and phone calls, I never heard back from them.”
In related news, Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), earlier today issued a statement about further investigations into Archbishop McCarrick, as well as Viganò’s letter of testimony, which was made public on August 25th.
“The recent letter of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò,” says Cardinal DiNardo, “brings particular focus and urgency to this examination. The questions raised deserve answers that are conclusive and based on evidence. Without those answers, innocent men may be tainted by false accusation and the guilty may be left to repeat sins of the past.”
The full text of Cardinal DiNardo’s statement can be read below.
——————
WASHINGTON— Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has issued the following statement.
Cardinal DiNardo’s full statement follows:
“In communion with the Holy Father, I join the Executive Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in taking upon ourselves his exhortation, ‘this open wound [of abuse] challenges us to be firm and decisive in the pursuit of truth and justice.’
“On August 1st, I promised that USCCB would exercise the full extent of its authority, and would advocate before those with greater authority, to pursue the many questions surrounding Archbishop McCarrick. On August 16th, I called for an Apostolic Visitation, working in concert with a national lay commission granted independent authority, to seek the truth. Yesterday, I convened our Executive Committee once again, and it reaffirmed the call for a prompt and thorough examination into how the grave moral failings of a brother bishop could have been tolerated for so long and proven no impediment to his advancement.
“The recent letter of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò brings particular focus and urgency to this examination. The questions raised deserve answers that are conclusive and based on evidence. Without those answers, innocent men may be tainted by false accusation and the guilty may be left to repeat sins of the past.
“I am eager for an audience with the Holy Father to earn his support for our plan of action. That plan includes more detailed proposals to: seek out these answers, make reporting of abuse and misconduct by bishops easier, and improve procedures for resolving complaints against bishops. Inspired by his recent letter to the people of God, and his motu proprio of two years ago, As a Loving Mother, I am confident Pope Francis shares our desire for greater effectiveness and transparency in the matter of disciplining bishops. We renew our fraternal affection for the Holy Father in these difficult days.
“To the survivors of abuse and the families who have lost a loved one to abuse, I am sorry. You are no longer alone. Since 2002, hundreds of professionally trained staff across the country have been working with the Church to support survivors and prevent future abuse. Nationwide, the Church has a zero-tolerance policy toward priests and deacons who abuse, safe environment training, background checks for those working around children, victim assistance coordinators, prompt reporting to civil authorities, and lay review boards in dioceses.
“In other ways, we have failed you. This is especially true for adults being sexually harassed by those in positions of power, and for any abuse or harassment perpetrated by a bishop. We will do better. The more she is buffeted by storms, the more I am reminded that the Church’s firm foundation is Jesus Christ. The failures of men cannot diminish the light of the Gospel. Lord, by the help of your mercy, show us the way to salvation.”
——————
Statement by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò regarding the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis
Accusations against my person appeared in the media – in July 2016, when I had already left my mission in Washington, D.C. – following the publication of a memorandum written by Father Dan Griffith, the then delegate for the protection of minors in the Archdiocese.
These accusations – alleging that I ordered the two Auxiliary Bishops of Minneapolis to close the investigation into the life of Archbishop John C. Nienstedt – are false.
Father Griffith was not present during my meeting at the Nunciature with the Archbishop and the two Auxiliaries on April 12, 2014, during which several affidavits containing accusations against Archbishop Nienstedt were handed to me.
These affidavits were collected by the firm, Greene Espel, who was retained by Father Griffith on behalf of the Archdiocese to investigate Archbishop Nienstedt. This firm belongs to the group “Lawyers for All Families,” who fought against Archbishop Nienstedt over the approval of same-sex marriage in the State of Minnesota.
In one of these affidavits, it was claimed that Archbishop Nienstedt had had an affair with a Swiss Guard during his service in the Vatican some twenty years prior.
Private investigators from the Greene Espel firm had conducted an inquiry in an unbalanced and prosecutorial style, and now wanted immediately to extend their investigation to the Pontifical Swiss Guard, without first hearing Archbishop Nienstedt.
I suggested to the bishops who came to the Nunciature on April 12, 2014, that they tell the Greene Espel lawyers that it appeared to me appropriate that Archbishop Nienstedt be heard before taking this step – audiatur et altera pars – which they had not yet done. The bishops accepted my suggestion.
But the following day, I received a letter signed by the two auxiliaries, falsely asserting that I had suggested the investigation be stopped.
I never told anyone that Greene Espel should stop the inquiry, and I never ordered any document to be destroyed. Any statement to the contrary is false.
However, I did instruct one of the auxiliary bishops, Lee A. Piché, to remove from the computer and the archdiocesan archives the letter falsely asserting that I had suggested the investigation be halted. I insisted on this not only to protect my name, but also that of the Nunciature and the Holy Father who would be unnecessarily harmed by having a false statement used against the Church.
The very day the news appeared in the New York Times, on July 21, 2016, the Holy Father asked Cardinal Parolin to phone the Nuncio in Washington, D.C. (Christophe Pierre), ordering that an investigation into my conduct be opened immediately, so that I could be reported to the tribunal in charge of judging abuse cover-up by bishops.
I informed the Vatican Press Office in the persons of Father Lombardi and Mr. Greg Burke. With the authorization of the Substitute of the Secretary of State, then-Archbishop Becciu, Mr. Jeffrey Lena – an American lawyer working for the Holy See – went to the Congregation for Bishops where he found documents proving that my conduct had been absolutely correct.
Mr. Lena handed a written report exonerating me to the Holy Father. In spite of this, the Vatican Press Office did not deem it necessary to release a statement refuting the New York Times article.
The Nunciature also responded to Cardinal Parolin with a detailed report, which restored the truth and demonstrated that my conduct had been absolutely correct.
This report is found in the Vatican Secretariat of State and at the Nunciature in Washington, DC.
On January 28, 2017, I wrote to both Archbishop Pierre and Archbishop Hebda (who had succeeded Nienstedt), asking them to publicly correct the Griffith memorandum. In spite of repeated emails and phone calls, I never heard back from them.
August 26, 2018
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
It’s getting ugly out there.
And they say American politics is treacherous.
Cardinal DiNardo, what about disciplining the bishop of Rome?
No, Cardinal DiNardo.
Don’t you dare tell the faithful that Pope Francis is a friend of justice and victim’s.
This is a false assurance. Pope Francis is a friend of yet another coverup Cardinal – the deceitful Godfried Danneels – a man who covered up homosexual incest by Bishop Roger Vangheluwe – a Cardinal who refused justice for a Catholic family testifying against their own uncle – and were forced into seeking justice in the Belgian press and Belgian law enforcement.
Marie Collins and all victims and parents and families testify against Pope Francis and his supporters. They are men of the lie, slaves to evil.
Oh, the typos.
The twists and turns of counter allegations impugning Archbishop Viganò are expected no surprise from Vatican observer John Allen Jr among the Pontiff’s admirers. Although his account has a supporting cast Archbishop Viganò has substantial supporting witnesses in lawyer Jeffrey Lena who investigated the Nienstedt coverup for the Holy See vindicating the Archbishop, as well as Msgr Lantheaume former nuncio counselor a supporting witness to the charges against Pope Francis. Whether Vatican documents exist that back the Archbishop they may decide the entire issue. It seems on the basis of these two witnesses the lawyer confirming his integrity the Msgr the accusations v Pope Francis Archbishop Viganò has credibility. Cardinal DiNardo’s request from the Pontiff for the Cardinal to initiate an inquiry has enormous good potential for the Church, or for further politicization and obeisance. The Cardinal can redeem Am hierarchy at least faithful prelates and renew lost confidence among the faithful at large. He may if given the freedom effect a just conclusion for benefit of the Church.
Don’t be surprised if the evidence ends up with Hillary’s emails.
I’ve thought the same Bill. If they are still intact at the Nunciature I’m not convinced they’ll allow access to them. Cardinal DiNaardo if he’s granted his request the the Pontiff for initiating an investigation he must make that a primary subject. Then we have our FBI who redacted most the the pertinent documentation requested by Congress. This type of unethical practice is quite common.
Unbelievable. These Vatican manipulators throw whatever they have at anyone who dares expose their darkness. I am now even more confident that they have absolutely nothing on Cardinal Burke if they can’t even manage to create a fake but plausible scandal in an attempt to implicate him. The list of candidates for who should be the next pope can already be counted on one hand, but at this rate, we may end up with a laity-selected “Ambrose bishop” moment in St. Peter’s Square whenever the next conclave is held.
May our Lord preserve His Grace, Archbishop Viganò.
“Whether Vatican documents exist that back the Archbishop they may decide the entire issue.”
LifeSiteNews has links to PDF copies of letters from Vigano and bishops Piche and Cozzens, all dated 2014, to Card. Oullet and others, corroborating Vigano’s claim that he did not direct that the investigation should be halted, only that it should not proceed to the next phase (investigating the Swiss Guard) until after Bishop Nienstedt had been questioned by investigators.
Yes, true.
Thanks Thomas. There may be record of Archbishop Viganò’s informing Pope Francis of Cardinal McCarrick’s history of homosexual abuse. Though he does have Msgr Lantheaume to back him on that. The Pope has clearly implemented an agenda of embracing homosexuality and condoning serial abusers. That condoning goes beyond a desire simply to sanitize homosexuality. It reveals a desire at least by implication to harm the Church. Apparently we’re dealing with more than an ignorant bumbling Pope. My fear is for the worst possible scenario.
I have long felt that Archbishop John Nienstedt was framed or set up by the many snakes in the Archdiocese of Minneapolis and St. Paul. This article makes me think that even more. The Gay Lobby hated Nienstedt and would stop at nothing to destroy him. I pray that there is another investigation into his case. I think Nienstedt’s enemies got people to bear false witness against him. And they are persecuting him wherever he goes to try and serve the Church.
Yes, I remember feeling absolute disbelief at the time. I thought they wanted to get him – with the useful support of the media – and they got him.
Absolutely. The stench around that debacle was unmistakable. Archbishop Nienstedt was morally assassinated by reptiles. The vipers tangle is a healthy crew in Minnesota.
The sleaze from bergoglio down through the NY Times and John Allen is apparent to faithful Catholics. The swamp of bergoglio, o’malley, cupich, farrell, tobin, coccopalmieri, maradiaga, and wuerl must be drained.
They are filth on earth.
Hasn’t anyone in the comments feed ever studied logic? Okay, for those with only journalist skills in thinking here’s a brief lesson:
The truth of a preposition does not depend on the character of the person that proposes it. A habitual liar will still say many true things, and a virtuous person may occasionally say something untrue. But the truth of a preposition depends on its correspondence to reality.
To hold otherwise is to commit a logical fallacy called “tu quoque”.
So the test of Abp Viganò’s statements is whether they can be shown to fit the real situation of Bergoglio and his minions. Not the Abp’s character.
Danneels, Maradiaga, Spadaro, McCarrick, Pineda, Barros, Martin, Ticona…none of these men were known to be anything other than what they are … but Bergoglio keeps them bosom buddies. Then there is the cast of the boldly heterodox … that list appears endless. He promotes their apostasy.
Like the finale of Cinderella, a perfect fit.
Just to clarify my comment, I wasn’t saying anything negative about the people commenting here, I was just pointing out that Abp Viganò’s letter has to be judged on its own merits and not on whatever anyone may opine about his character.
I of course believe his testimony. It fits all the known facts about these bishops, including the bishop of Rome.
Truth or the lack of it is not one of the parameters of prepositions.
Prepositions are preposed, propositions are proposed.
The decisive factor is what the US Conference of Bishops will do. Will it have the backbone to demand a full and honest accounting of the claims in the Vigano’ testimony and declare Pope Francis to be a corrupt Pope if that accounting is not permitted? It is a tall order. If however this is not done I can only conclude that the human institutional Church is shot through with corruption that cannot be eradicated so long as Pope Francis is the pope.
Right now only the US Bishops can call Pope Francis to account concerning the Vigano’ testimony. The press is obviously far too corrupt to do it. The call by Pope Francis for the press to settle this points to his own corruption. If the Vigano’ testimony is true insofar as it implicates Pope Francis in the McCarrick scandal (and by all indications it is) the only honest thing for Pope Francis to do would be to say that he is implicated in the problem and for that reason is abdicating. If the Bishop of Rome is permitted to promote a known sexual predator without consequence, why should any other bishop suffer any consequence for doing so?
The laity should mobilize to protest the USCCB general meeting in November.
I had a similar idea but the better place and time would be Rome during the Youth Synod. If a significant turnout could be accomplished — a difficult thing — it would have an impact.
There are already letters from eg, Cardinal Oullette of Canada posted at Lufe Site and Rod Dreher vindicating Archbishop Viganò’s testimony.
In connection: America Media and Crux are nothing but sleek psychological groomers for the McCarrick establishment.
Yes, and lifesite news posted thN link for a petition in support of Archbishop Vigano.
Those who are known to be sympathetic to the homosexual element and their ideology continue to emerge as the adversaries of Archbishop Viganò and his soundly supported testimony. This is a man of faith at the last passage of temporal existence who would not jeopardize his eternal salvation to score a vengeful hit.
Passive-aggressive and vindictive — the expected and usual personality profile – the credibility of his opponents is non-existent. When you live up to gross characterizations you can expect to be regarded with skepticism. It is not odd to see the heterodox element – the irony be not lost – in the Church exhibit the same characteristics of a sub-culture that wears victimhood as a badge of honor when it appears that within the ecclesial orbit they have been the most likely to victimize.
This truth is out, and it will not go back in the closet. And they themselves are the ones who have brought disgrace and distrust not only upon the Church, but upon those shouldering bravely and virtuously the cross of same-sex attraction – anonymously and with prudence – across all walks of life and service within the Church.
God reward Archbishop Viganò. His veracity is impeccable and was only magnified by the spineless response by Pope Francis to a direct question which only required a simple yes or a no. Mendacity takes refuge in a word salad – yet again.
NC Register story now shows that the AD of Washington refuses to respond to reports about suddenly helping McCarrick move out of the seminary and over to a parish, apparently involving significant expense.
All happening under B16…corroborating Archbishop Viganò’s testimony.
Are there any websites/social media accounts out there to help the laity mobilize to petition their bishops and the USCCB?
Try complicitclergy.com
I was in the process of converting to Catholicism when Archbishop Neinstedt came to St. Paul. I was all agog with meeting a real bishop when he preached at my church, since he was trying to preach at every parish of the several hundred or so. He preached about love for the poor. Afterwards I treated him like a rock star when he took my hand, looked into my eyes with a serious look I will never forget, and said, “Pray for me.” That’s when I knew the dark forces he was up against.
Cue Crazy Ralph from “Friday the 13th” (1980):
“Doomed! You’re all doomed!”
FATHER,GOD ALMIGHTY,MAY THY MOST HOLY WILL BE DONE.JUST HELP YOUR CHURCH CLEANSE ITSELF.THIS WILL HAPPEN SINCE NOT EVEN THE GATES OF HELL CAN PREVAIL OVER OUR BELOVED CHURCH.GOD BLESS AND FORGIVE US ALL THAT ASK YOUR FORGIVENESS.
Even more important that he respond to the smiling picture of self with honoree mccarrick in 2012.
“Viganò, in his statement, says that in April 2014 he was given affidavits containing accusations that Nienstedt had an affair with a member of the Swiss guard while serving in the Vatican two decades ago. Viganò says that an inquiry had been conducted by private investigators who were working for a Minneapolis law firm, Greene Espel, that was part of a pro-“same-sex marriage” coalition.”
Why would they hire a firm in favor of same sex marriage? Is this verifiable? It’s certainly not proof but isn’t that very telling that you would hire a pro- SSM firm who’s lawyers have been given awards by the LGBT community in Japan and who’s previous attorney’s have been been appointed to the bench by a pro lgbt Governor.
So Father Griffith hired these lawyers and now wants to accuse Vigano who is coming out against abuse and homosexuality in the church? What is Father Griffith’s record on SSM? It seems to me that the homosexual lobby has used the method of ” a house divided will fall” against faithful Catholics for a while now. As an example, a former president named many Catholics to high ranking positions who were publicly in favor of SSM and abortion- this effectively split the Catholic vote.
I am praying that this method is now backfiring and will be used against them. All those priests , bishops and Cardinals who have had a hand in this behavior will have to be on guard now and it will only take a few to come forward before their whole world starts to unravel. All those clergy who show support and walk in gay pride parades and are assigned by Pope Francis to speak at World Meeting of families need to start explaining their position on these matters.
This is both a tragic and hopeful moment in our church. God can use all things for good.
Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano was Apostolic Nuncio to Nigeria from 1992 to 1998. He was thorough and exacting with both Nunciature personnel and bishops in Nigeria – which didn’t always endear him to the Nigerian hierarchy. Unlike many of his predecessors he travelled and spent time with missionaries in the most remote parts of Nigeria – and acquired huge knowledge of the vast and intricate complexities of the Nigerian Church. I know personally that he was hugely generous with his father’s estate to some of these missionaries that enabled many church and humanitarian projects come to completion.
Vigano loved the Lord and loved the Church. It is so painful to see how this loyal Churchman could be so badly treated in recent years. I and others who ‘knew’ him don’t doubt but Vigano is telling the truth – a truth that can be easily verifiable as almost every thought, word and action is itemized and serialized in Nunciature files. God bless Archbishop Vigano.
I live in New York City, and on June 20, I received an email from the Archdiocese of NY, informing of Mccarrick’s release from public duty after an intensive investigation into the charges brought against him revealed the seriousness and credibility of the charges. I read Mccarrick’s letter in response, which closed with, “… I have absolutely no recollection of this reported abuse, and believe in my innocence …” Since that time, I have learned that Mccarrick’s prodiguous sexual escapades with young boys and men were the worst kept secret in the Church, that he was bold and flagrant in his behavior. It is really not a stretch to see Mccarrick as a true sociopath. The main reason I believe the Vatican is culpable in this heinous crime is what is happening with Mccarrick right now — Nothing! As far as I know, Mccarrick could be sipping gin and tonics in a plush apartment while watching the Church crumble under his balcony. (I don’t see the prayer and penance thing for this character.) A more appropriate and powerful Vatican response would have been to put tremendous focus and energy on getting Mccarrick prosecuted and jailed, and daily heartfelt public appearances by the pope delivering messages to the faithful explaining in detail what actions are being taken. As far as I can see, the Vatican is currenty protecting a deviant criminal, a man they enabled throughout his long career. And, meanwhile, it is business as usual, the conference in Ireland, the Youth Synod, the proclamation re capital punishment. This behavior just screams “denial”, and worse – I just don’t believe they really care – except that is, “caring” in the most narscissitic sense. And, worse, this dark story could go on for decades, as it has already.
There was a day – not too long ago – when almost no one would even think of questioning the word of a Bishop, a Cardinal or the Pope, and that was based on the trust, even from non-Catholics, that such people would ever even think about lying concerning issues such as we are facing in the Church in these sad days. Sadly those days are gone, and the sooner we all acknowledge that – including the Bishops, The Cardinals and the Pope, the sooner we can get to fixing this mess.
“Because I said so and that closes the subject” is no longer good enough.