Cardinal Ouellet vs. Archbishop Vigano

Pope Benedict had imposed on Cardinal McCarrick sanctions similar to those now imposed on him by Pope Francis: the Cardinal was to leave the seminary where he was living, he was forbidden to celebrate [Mass] in public, to participate in public meetings, to give lectures, to travel, with the obligation of dedicating himself to a life of prayer and penance.

In his second letter released in September, he specifically called out Cardinal Ouellet.  He claimed that he had documents stating this:

Your Eminence, before I left for Washington, you were the one who told me of Pope Benedict’s sanctions on McCarrick. You have at your complete disposal key documents incriminating McCarrick and many in the curia for their cover-ups. Your Eminence, I urge you to bear witness to the truth.

Unlike Pope Francis who said that he would not say a word, Cardinal Ouellet responded and in a very aggressive way.  He denied that those documents existed though a careful reading of his letter vindicates Vigano’s claims.  I read the letter in English and the original French and I found some interesting stuff.  Ouellet writes:

Since I became Prefect of this Congregation on 30 June 2010, I never brought up the McCarrick case in an audience with Pope Benedict XVI or Pope Francis until these last days, after his removal from the College of Cardinals. The former Cardinal, who had retired in May 2006, had been strongly advised not to travel and not to appear in public, so as not to provoke additional rumors in his regard. It is false to present the measures taken in his regard as “sanctions” decreed by Pope Benedict XVI and revoked by Pope Francis. After re-examining the archives, I can ascertain that there are no corresponding documents signed by either Pope, neither is there a note of an audience with my predecessor, Cardinal Giovanni-Battista Re, giving Archbishop Emeritus McCarrick an obligatory mandate of silence and to retire to a private life, carrying canonical penalties. The reason being that at that time, unlike today, there was not sufficient proof of his alleged guilt. Hence, the position of the Congregation was inspired by prudence, and my predecessor’s letters, as well as mine, reiterated through the Apostolic Nuncio Pietro Sambi, and then also through you, urging a discreet style of life, of prayer and penance for his own good and that of the Church. His case would have been the object of new disciplinary measures had the Nunciature in Washington, or whatever other source, provided us with recent and decisive information regarding his behavior.

This is such a juicy section of the letter because without meaning to, he spills all the beans.  Let’s look at a key part of this text and examine it.

The former Cardinal, who had retired in May 2006, had been strongly advised not to travel and not to appear in public, so as not to provoke additional rumors in his regard.

So McCarrick had been strongly advised not travel or appear in public as it may cause rumors.  First of all, who can strongly advise one of the highest prelates in the American Church?  That would either be the Pope or someone from the Curia.  Also, these “rumors” would have been rumors among the hierarchy as his sins were not yet known to the world.

Hence, the position of the Congregation was inspired by prudence, and my predecessor’s letters, as well as mine, reiterated through the Apostolic Nuncio Pietro Sambi, and then also through you, urging a discreet style of life, of prayer and penance for his own good and that of the Church.

This shows that Vigano was correct as it sounds like sanctions to me.  Also, if he was advised to do this, why was Pope Francis sending him to China?  Doesn’t sound like the Pope approved of a travel ban previously imposed on him.  This is exactly what Vigano said.

Now, Vigano and Ouellet are at odds on the existence of documents.  Cardinal Ouellet says:

Hence, the position of the Congregation was inspired by prudence, and my predecessor’s letters, as well as mine

If you read what Vigano said carefully, he never said that the documents were from the Pope.  Ouellet is admitting that he and his predecessor had written letters( and the content was re-iterated by apostolic nuncio’s including Vigano).  I’m guessing that these are the documents that Vigano was talking about.  What did these letters say:

…urging a discreet style of life, of prayer and penance for his own good and that of the Church.

This is exactly what Vigano has been saying.  Cardinal Ouellet should release these letters so we can know the truth.  It’s inconceivable to think that copies of these letters don’t exist.  If Cardinal Ouellet and his predecessor’s knew, then it’s impossible that Francis didn’t know.

The ball is still in the Cardinal’s court.  The only difference is that the whole world now knows that he has the documents that Archbishop Vigano spoke about.