Viganò compares McCarrick Report to COVID, 2020 election

November 24, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — The McCarrick Report published by the Secretariat of State on November 10, 2020, has been the object of numerous comments. Some point out its shortcomings, while others praise it as a proof of Bergoglio’s transparency and the groundlessness of my accusations. I would like to focus on some aspects that deserve to be further explored, which do not concern me personally. The purpose of these reflections is thus not to adduce further evidence concerning the falsity of arguments raised against me, but rather to highlight the inconsistencies of the report and the conflict of interest that exists between the one who judges and the one being judged, which in my opinion is such as to invalidate the investigation, the trial, and the sentence.

First of all, I must say that, in contrast with a normal civil or penal trial, in ecclesiastical investigations there is a sort of implicit right to credibility in testimonies given by clerics. This seems to have allowed even testimonies of prelates who could find themselves in a position of complicity with regard to McCarrick to be considered as evidence, even though they would have had no interest in revealing the truth, since doing so would have harmed themselves and their own image. In short, to borrow an image from Carlo Collodi, it is hard to imagine that the Cat (Kevin Farrell) could credibly exonerate the Fox (Theodore McCarrick); yet this is what has happened, just as it was possible to deceive John Paul II about the advisability of appointing McCarrick as Cardinal Archbishop of Washington, or Benedict XVI about the gravity of the accusations that weighed on the cardinal.

By now it is understood that this right to credibility, when applied to the Argentine, has risen to the level of a dogma, perhaps the only dogma that cannot be questioned in the church of mercy, especially when alternative interpretations of reality – which mortals prosaically call lies – are formulated precisely by him.

We are also left bewildered by the fact that Msgr. Farrell’s testimony in defense of McCarrick has been reported with emphasis – the Bishop is even referred to with the title of “Most Excellent” – but that at the same time the testimony of James Grein was completely omitted, just as the choice was prudently made not to take a deposition from the Secretaries of State Sodano and Bertone. Nor is it clear for what reason Farrell’s words in defense of his friend and housemate are considered valid and credible, while mine are not, even though I am an Archbishop and Apostolic Nuncio. The only reason I can identify is that while Farrell’s words confirm Bergoglio’s thesis, mine refute it and demonstrate that it was not only the Bishop of Dallas who was lying.

It should also be remembered that Cardinal Wuerl, McCarrick’s successor on the chair of Washington, resigned on October 12, 2018, due to pressure from public opinion after his repeated denials of having been aware of the depraved conduct of his brother bishop. Yet in 2004 Wuerl had to handle the complaint made by Robert Ciolek, a former priest of the Diocese of Metuchen, against McCarrick, sending it to the then-Apostolic Nuncio Msgr. Gabriel Montalvo. In 2009, it was Wuerl who ordered McCarrick’s transfer from Redemptoris Mater Seminary to Saint Thomas the Apostle Parish in Washington, and in 2010 it was Wuerl himself, along with the President of the Bishops’ Conference, Cardinal Francis George, who advised the Secretariat of State against sending a congratulatory message to McCarrick on the occasion of his 80th birthday. The Report also cites the correspondence between Nuncio Sambi and Wuerl concerning the danger of scandal surrounding McCarrick’s person; the same may be said for the correspondence of Cardinal Re, the Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, which confirms that Wuerl “constantly favored McCarrick even when he was not living in the seminary.” It is therefore very strange that the serious suspicions which weighed on the cardinal prior to my appointment [as Nuncio], which are amply documented in the Report, are considered grounds for censure against me – despite my having once again notified the Secretariat of State about them – but not against Wuerl, who even after his resignation as Archbishop of Washington retained his posts in the Roman Dicasteries, including the Congregation for Bishops where he retained his voice in the appointment of bishops.

It is not clear why the drafters of the Report are so casual in judging John Paul II for having put faith in his secretary’s words in defense of McCarrick, yet so absolving towards Bergoglio, despite the fact that there was a pile of dossiers concerning Uncle Ted, whom Bergoglio’s predecessor had requested to “keep a low profile.”

I believe the time has come to clarify once and for all the position of the judging body – rectius: of this judging body – with respect to the accused.

According to the law, a judge must be impartial, and in order to be such he must not have any interest or connection with the one being judged. In reality, this impartiality fails in one of the most sensational canonical processes in the history of the Church, in which the scandals and crimes alleged against the accused are of such gravity that they merited his deposition from being a cardinal and his reduction to the lay state.


It is necessary to emphasize the extreme mildness of the sentence inflicted on the offender, indeed one could even say its absence, since the one accused was only deprived of the clerical state with an administrative procedure from the tribunal of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ratified as res iudicata by Bergoglio. And yet it would have been possible to give him a prison sentence, as was done for the counselor at the Nunciature in Washington who in 2018 was sentenced to five years in prison in the Vatican for the possession and dissemination of child pornography.

In truth, dismissal from the clerical state reveals the essence of that clericalism – so deplored in words – which considers the lay state almost as a punishment in itself, while it ought to be the premise for the imposition of a penal sanction. Among other things, the lack of imprisonment or at least house arrest permits McCarrick to have a total freedom of movement and action that keeps his situation unchanged. He is therefore in a position to commit new crimes and to continue to carry out his criminal activities in both the ecclesial and political spheres.

Finally, it should be remembered that the canonical process does not eliminate the criminal cases against the former cardinal which have been introduced in American courts, which strangely languish in the utmost secrecy, further demonstrating McCarrick’s political power and media influence not only in the Vatican but also in the United States.

It is difficult to look at the “judge” of this case without considering the fact that he may find himself in a position of having a debt of gratitude towards the accused and his accomplices: that is, that he has a clear conflict of interest.

If Jorge Mario Bergoglio owes his election to the conspiracy of the so-called Saint Gallen Mafia, which included ultra-progressive cardinals in constant and assiduous relationship with McCarrick; if McCarrick’s endorsement of candidate Bergoglio found a hearing among the conclave electors and those who have the power of persuasion in the Vatican, for example the famous “Italian gentleman” whom the American cardinal referred to in a 2013 conference at Villanova University; if the resignation of Benedict XVI was in some way provoked or favored by interference from the deep church and the deep state, it is logical to suppose that Bergoglio and his collaborators did not have any intention of letting the names of McCarrick’s accomplices leak into the Report, nor the names of those who favored him in his ecclesiastical cursus honorum, nor above all the names of those who in the face of the possibility of a conviction could in some way take revenge, for example by revealing the involvement of prominent personalities of the Roman Curia, if not of Bergoglio himself.

In blatant contradiction of the claimed pretense of transparency, the Report took great care not to reveal the acts of the administrative process. It is therefore possible to ask if McCarrick’s defense may have agreed to the sentencing of his client in exchange for a ridiculously small sentence that in fact leaves the offender who committed such serious crimes in total freedom, while preventing the victims from challenging the “judge” and demanding fair compensation. Certainly, the anomaly is obvious, even to those who are not experts in the law.

In this network of complicity and blackmail, it is also possible to highlight ties of both the “judge” and the accused with politics, in particular with the American Democratic Party, with Communist China, and more generally with the globalist movements and parties. The fact that in 2004 McCarrick, who was then Archbishop of Washington, worked strenuously to prevent the dissemination of the letter of the then-Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, to the bishops of the United States with regard to the ban on administering Holy Communion to politicians who support abortion, undoubtedly represents an assist to self-styled Catholic Democratic politicians, beginning with John Kerry all the way up to Joe Biden. The latter, a convinced supporter of abortion, merited the almost-unanimous support of the hierarchy, thus being able to count on the votes of an electorate that would otherwise have been destined for Trump. Strange coincidences, to be honest: on the one hand the deep state struck at the Church and Benedict XVI with the intention of electing a representative of the deep church as Pope; on the other hand the deep church struck at the State and Trump with the intention of electing a representative of the deep state as President. Let the reader judge whether the plans of the conspirators have achieved their intended purpose

Analogies with the pandemic and the electoral fraud



Vices and corruption find the deep church and deep state united in a cesspool of repugnant crimes, in which the defenseless and children are the victims of exploitation, violence and harassment committed by characters who at the same time promote abortion, gender ideology, and the sexual freedom of minors, including sex changes.

Illegal immigration as well – which is supported in order to destabilize nations and cancel their identities – finds support from both the Left as well as the church of Bergoglio, despite the fact that it is directly connected with the trafficking of minors, the increase of criminality and the destruction of the social fabric. Indeed, it is supported for precisely for this reason, just as there has been a desire to encourage the political crisis in the US elections, the economic crisis through the criminal manipulation of the pandemic, and possibly also religious warfare via the Islamic attacks and profanations of churches throughout Europe.

It is also very disconcerting that, in this perfectly coherent framework, there are many prelates – if not almost all of them – who limit themselves to analyzing the events that affect the Catholic Church almost as if they existed only in the ecclesial sphere, as if they did not have any relation with the political and social events that are unfolding on the global level. There are bishops who formulate some timid stances in the face of Bergoglio’s words in support of the legalization of civil unions, or over the inconsistencies and falsifications that emerge in the McCarrick Report; but none of them, even if animated by good intentions, dare to denounce the evidence of the facts, namely the existence of a pactum sceleris between the deviant part of the Hierarchy – the deep church, precisely – and the deviant part of the State, of the world of finance and information. Yet it is so evident that it has been the object of analysis by numerous, mostly secular, intellectuals.

This point must be denounced loudly: the Report drawn up by the Secretariat of State is an indecent and clumsy attempt to give a semblance of credibility to a gang of perverts and corrupt men in the service of the New World Order. The surreal thing is that this operation of impudent mystification has been carried out, not by the accused, but by those who ought to judge him, and along with him they paradoxically ought to judge themselves, their brothers, their friends, and those to whom they guaranteed impunity, promotions, and careers.

The credibility of the writers of the Report may be demonstrated from its mild condemnation of a prelate organic to the system, whom Bergoglio himself sent as an interlocutor of the Holy See with the Chinese communist dictatorship, and who at the same time carried out official assignments on behalf of the U.S. State Department, frequenting the Clintons, Obamas, Bidens, and the Democrats. This credibility may also be confirmed by the fact that a corrupt homosexual, a molester of young men and children, a corrupter of clergy and seminarians, was simply deprived of the dignity of cardinal and of the clerical state without any prison sentence and without excommunicating him for the delicts with which he stained himself, including the crime of “sollicitatio ad turpia” in Confession, one of the most hateful crimes that a priest can commit. In this “process,” as summary as it was omissory, the spiritual dimension of guilt was completely absent: the guilty party was not subjected to excommunication, which is an eminently medicinal sanction ordered towards eternal salvation, nor was he exhorted to do penance, to make public amends and reparation.
An independent commission

When the Nuremberg trials were held after World War II against the crimes of Nazism, the court was presided over by a Russian judge who was charged with judging the invasion of Poland that Germany, as we know, had undertaken precisely with Russia. It seems to me that there is not much difference between this and what we see happening today in the attempt to lay responsibility for the McCarrick case on John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and the undersigned. The only one who in the narrative of the Secretariat of State cannot be touched by any suspicion, by any accusation – even if only indirect – or by any shadow of cover-up, should obviously be the Argentine.

It would seem appropriate for an independent commission to be constituted – as was already hoped for by the U.S. Bishops’ Conference in November 2018 and as was then firmly blocked by the Congregation for Bishops at the order of Bergoglio – that would investigate this case without external influences and without hiding decisive evidence. However, I doubt that the improbable hopes of the U.S. Bishops’ Conference will be heard, since among those being raised to cardinal in the upcoming consistory is the Archbishop of Washington, the executor of Santa Marta’s orders, who joins the most faithful servants Cupich and Tobin.

If light would truly be shed on the entire affair, the whole house of cards constructed in these years would collapse, and the complicity of members of the Hierarchy at the highest levels would also emerge, as well as their ties with the American Democrats and the global Left. In short, there would be confirmed what many do not yet dare admit, namely, the role played by the deep church, since the election of John XXIII, in creating the theological premises and the ecclesial climate that would allow the Church to be the servant of the New World Order and to replace the Pope with the false prophet of the Antichrist. If this has not yet completely happened, we must give thanks only to Providence.

I imagine that the moderates – as silent today in the face of Covid as they are in deploring the electoral fraud or the farce of the McCarrick Report – are horrified at the mere mention of calling into question the Second Vatican Council. The Democrats too are horrified to hear criticism of the laws thanks to which the United States has come to see the will of the voters subverted. The self-styled health experts are horrified to see their claims contested which contrast with the scientific truth and with the epidemiological evidence. The supporters of the reception of illegal immigrants are horrified when they are shown the rate of murder, rape, violence and robbery committed by those same illegal immigrants. The supporters of the gay lobby are horrified when the criminal offenses of a predatory nature committed by clerics are shown to involve a very high percentage of homosexuals. In this general tearing of garments, I would like to recall that it would be enough to have a little intellectual honesty and a little critical judgment to look the evidence in the face, even if it is painful.

This intrinsic link between doctrinal deviation and moral deviation emerged clearly on the occasion of the head-on clash with those covering up the McCarrick case: the people involved are almost always the same, with the same vices against faith and morals. They defend, cover for, and promote each other, because they are part of a true and proper “lobby,” understood as a group holding power that is capable of influencing the activity of the legislator and the decisions of the government or the other administrative organs to their own advantage.



Would we be surprised if, after noting the electoral fraud in the presidential election in the United States, “someone” would even try to manipulate the election of the Supreme Pontiff? Let us not forget that, as has already been noted by several parties, on the fourth vote of the second day of the last conclave an irregularity emerged in the counting of the ballots, which was remedied by a new vote, in derogation from the provisions of the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis promulgated by John Paul II in 1996.

It is however significant that, while on the one hand McCarrick is now ousted from his functions and resides in a secret locality (where he can continue undisturbed in his para-diplomatic activity on behalf of the deep state and the deep church in the anonymous guise of a layman), on the other hand all those who have made a career in the Church thanks to McCarrick are still in their places and have even been promoted: all people whom he favored because of a common lifestyle and common intentions; all blackmailable and blackmailers because of the secrets which they have come to know thanks to their position; all of them ready to pull out names and circumstances and dates if anyone dares to touch them. Some could still be forced to obey Mr. McCarrick, if he can keep them under blackmail or bribe them with the huge money at his disposal, even now that he is no longer a prince of the Church.

The “line” which this cardinal began is today capable – as we see – of interfering and working in the life of the Church and society, with the advantage of having discharged the sins of the entire “lavender mafia” onto a convenient scapegoat and to be able to appear today as if it is a stranger to allegations of abuse. But it is enough to walk through the gates of the Porta Angelica to come across unpresentable characters, some of whom have been called to the Vatican to save them from investigations that were pending on them abroad; others are even regulars at Santa Marta or perform managerial duties there, consolidating the network of connivances and complicities under the indulgent eyes of the Prince. On the other hand, the emphasis on Bergoglio’s moralizing role smashes against the crude reality that nothing has ever really changed behind the high Leonine Wall, given the protection enjoyed by, among others, Peña Parra and Zanchetta.

Some commentators have rightly highlighted a disheartening fact: the crimes for which McCarrick was summoned to judgment only concern the abuse of minors, while his unnatural relationships with consenting adults are quietly accepted and tolerated, as if the immoral and sacrilegious acts of a cleric are not to be deplored, but rather only his imprudence in not having known how to keep them within the secrecy of the home. This too will have to be accounted for by those responsible, above all in consideration of Bergoglio’s increasingly clear will to apply a laxist pastoral approach – according to the tested method of Amoris Laetitia – in derogation of the moral condemnation of sodomy.

The paradoxical thing that emerges from the scandals of the clergy is that the latest concern of Bergoglio’s magic circle is to give justice to the victims, not only by compensating them (which, moreover, is not done by the perpetrators but by the dioceses, using the goods donated by the faithful) but also by punishing those responsible in an exemplary way. There ought to be punishment not only for delicts recognized as penal crimes by the laws of the State, but also for moral delicts, by which adults have been led into grave sin by sacred ministers. Who will heal the wounds of the soul, the stains on the purity of so many youth, including also seminarians and priests? By contrast, it appears that those who have been discovered and exposed to public execration consider themselves to be true victims: they feel they have been hindered in their interests, their trafficking, and their intrigues. Meanwhile, those who have denounced scandals, who ask for justice and truth, are considered guilty, beginning with priests who are transferred or deprived of the care of souls because they have dared to inform their bishop of the perversions of one of their brothers.
The holy church is the victim of the crimes of her ministers

But there is another completely innocent victim of these scandals: the Holy Church. The image of the Spouse of Christ has been tarnished, humiliated and discredited, because those who committed these crimes acted by exploiting the trust placed in the dress which they wear, using their own role as priest or prelate to ensnare and corrupt souls. The ones responsible for this discrediting of the Church include also those in the Vatican, in dioceses, in convents, in Catholic schools and in religious organizations – we think, for example, of the Boy Scouts – who did not eradicate this scourge in the bud but even hid it and denied it. By now it is evident that this invasion of homosexuals and perverts was planned and intended: it was not a fortuitous event that occurred only due to the omission of controls, but rather a precise plan of systematic infiltration of the Church in order to demolish it from within. And those to whom the Lord has entrusted the governance of His Spouse will have to answer to Him for this.

In all of this, however, our adversaries forget that the Church is not a faceless collection of persons without faces who blindly obey mercenaries, but rather a Living Body with a Divine Head: Our Lord Jesus Christ. To think of being able to kill the Spouse of Christ without the Spouse intervening is a delusion that only Satan could believe possible. Indeed, he will come to realize that precisely in crucifying her, in covering her with spit and lashes of the whip just as the Savior was crucified two thousand years ago, he is signing his own definitive defeat. O mors, ero mors tua: morsus tuus ero, inferne [O death, I will be your death: Hell, I shall be your sting].