THE OIL OF OUELLETT? WAS HIS DIATRIBE ACTUALLY SUPPORTIVE OF VIGANO BUT BT STEALTH?
WE ARE IN SCHISM. WHAT’S WORSE … THIS IS A “STEALTH SCHISM.”
This comment by MaryH at Fr. Z's blog is exactly what I thought when I read Cardinal Ouellett 's diatribe. What do you think?
Well, if you ignore all the opinion and exhortations, Cardinal Ouellet has confirmed Viganò’s testimony.
McCarrick was under direction from Pope Benedict not to travel and to stay out of the public eye because to avoid further rumors about him caused by his behavior in the past. We already know that these were not canonical sanctions. Ouellet’s written testimony confirms that there were indeed “noncanonical sanctions” or directions or whatever against McCarrick, and that it was because of rumors caused by McCarrick’s *behavior* in the past.
Frankly, that is a very useful corroboration of Vigano, since the “unofficial” nature of the sanctions means there can be no “official”, signed documents about them.
Next, Ouellet confirms that Vigano could very well have told Pope Francis about McCarrick. It is only Ouellet’s opinion that the Pope probably didn’t remember it because of all the information he was receiving, and because McCarrick was not important enough.
Next, he admits that there WAS evidence against McCarrick, because he says Vigano should have provided more recent and decisive evidence. Apparently, the old, less decisive evidence was enough for Pope Emeritous Benedict to put him under “unofficial sanctions”, but not enough for Pope Francis to maintain them. This begs the question of what it means to say there was not sufficient evidence of McCarrick’s guilt before this year.
I wonder whether the purpose of the diatribe is to confirm Viganò’s testimony without attracting the retribution of Pope Francis.