top of page

the DAILY KNIGHT

  • jmj4today

Archbishop Viganò confirms he did not and will not attend Vatican ‘schism’ trial

David Martin | The Daily Knight

On Friday, June 21, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò sent to LifeSiteNews a statement in which he denies having traveled to Rome to attend the “schism” trial to which he had been summoned.


To recap, Archbishop Viganò, former papal nuncio to the United States and outspoken critic of Pope Francis, announced on June 20 that he had been summoned to the Vatican to answer to charges of having committed the crime of schism by denying Francis’ heterodox teachings and the validity of his office.


In response to false media reports that Viganò went to Rome on Thursday to attend the trial, Viganò on Friday responded:


"The reports spread by certain media outlets, stating that I presented myself yesterday, Thursday, June 20, at the Palace of the Holy Office, as intimated to me by the Decree of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, is devoid of any foundation. These reports are completely false....

 

"I therefore wish to make it clear that I did not go to the Vatican yesterday [June 20], and that I have no intention of going to the Holy Office on June 28, and that I have not delivered any statement or document in my defense to the Dicastery, whose authority I do not recognize, nor do I recognize the authority of its Prefect."


It is well known throughout the Catholic world that Francis has never once answered Vigano's charges that he covered up for ex-Cardinal McCarrick and had been abusive with Jesuit novices, so how is it that Rome thinks they can call Viganò on the carpet? It is the Vatican and Francis that need to answer to Viganò, not vice-versa.

 

It indeed is good that Archbishop Viganò didn't attend the trial in Rome since this would have dignified the farcical DDF dicastery run by the obsessed sex-pervert and LGBT pusher, Cardinal Fernandez, who has sought to make a religion out of sex. It is Fernandez and his boss who are in schism.


The following is the verbatim text of Archbishop Vigano’s statement


The reports spread by certain media outlets, stating that I presented myself yesterday, Thursday, June 20, at the Palace of the Holy Office, as intimated to me by the Decree of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, is devoid of any foundation. These reports are completely false.

 

The Jesuit magazine America, the media arm of the Society of Jesus in the United States and the megaphone of the “church of mercy” of the Jesuit Bergoglio, has rushed ahead, while Vatican News (here) was still totally unaware of the Decree sent to me on June 11, only by a simple email, without respecting those formalities necessary for the validity of the communication of a Decree, and which I myself published on X two hours before the meeting scheduled at the Dicastery. Although all the elements were clearly stated in my communiqué, inferences and speculations took precedence, in typical Jesuit style.


Haste is a bad counselor. Therefore, Gerard O’Connell’s article Archbishop Viganò charged with schism by the Vatican that appeared yesterday at America (here) seems to have been written even before I made the Vatican document public. This reveals the close contiguity between the Vatican apparatus and America magazine and confirms a very precise strategy, aimed at liquidating my trial with a condemnation that has already been decided by Bergoglio and his zealous collaborator Tucho Fernández, author of the scandalous pornographic pamphlet La Pasion mistica: Espiritualidad y Sensualidad, as well as Saname con tu boca: El arte de besar. 


O’Connell writes: 


The decree says that it considered ‘superfluous’ the prior investigation in accordance with Canon 1717 that states, ‘Whenever an ordinary has knowledge, which at least seems true, of a delict, he is carefully to inquire personally or through another suitable person about the facts, circumstances, and imputability, unless such an inquiry seems entirely superfluous.’ This means that the evidence against him had already been collected by the dicastery and did not require fuller investigation. Much of it was already in the public domain.


As can be seen, “evidence” is considered superfluous, and the procedure is deliberately simplified in order to reach a conviction as soon as possible: 


America has learned that the decision to proceed with the extrajudicial penal trial would have been approved by the pope, since the accused is a bishop.


And that’s not all: the Jesuits of America are already giving indications about my procedural destiny: 


The extrajudicial penal trial is in accordance with Canon 1364 of the Code of Canon Law, which states: ‘An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latæ sententiæ excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of can. 194’ and that ‘he or she may also be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336 §§ 2-4.’ This means, among other things, that the excommunication would be declared publicly, and it would remain in force until the convicted person repents. That same Canon 1364 also states: ‘If a long-standing contempt or the gravity of scandal calls for it, other penalties may be added, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.’


The juridical competence of America magazine, however, seems to have no place in the Vatican, where it has now become common to use extrajudicial trials and the direct interventions of the Argentine both to cover up the real culprits and to hastily condemn the innocent. Beyond the media hype, the former Cardinal McCarrick – who in a serious trial would have been made to compensate the victims of his crimes after the examination of testimonies that could have clarified many connivances – continued to work for Bergoglio in the United States and China, where the secret Sino-Vatican Agreement saw him directly involved. Marko Rupnik, S.J., thanks to the intervention of his protector, had his excommunication lifted. He was not even dismissed from the clerical state; on the contrary, he was welcomed and incardinated in a diocese in Slovenia. Evidently, criticizing the Council is considered a far more serious crime than those of McCarrick and Rupnik.


I therefore wish to make it clear that I did not go to the Vatican yesterday [June 20], and that I have no intention of going to the Holy Office on June 28, and that I have not delivered any statement or document in my defense to the Dicastery, whose authority I do not recognize, nor do I recognize the authority of its Prefect, nor do I recognize the authority of the one who appointed him. 


I have no intention of submitting myself to a show trial in which those who are supposed to judge me impartially in order to defend Catholic orthodoxy are at the same time those whom I accuse of heresy, treason, and abuse of power. And among them are precisely the Jesuits, the first proponents of all the moral and doctrinal deviations of the last sixty years, starting with James Martin, S.J., the LGBTQ+ activist who is a regular visitor at Santa Marta. 


America says: 


A canon lawyer (who wished to remain anonymous) who has read the archbishop’s defense statement, told America: ‘This is the major argument for the prosecution. His defense is a declaration of schism. It is the most egregious act of schism.’ He explained that the extrajudicial procedure envisaged usually does not take much time. If the archbishop is convicted, the pope would then have to confirm the penalties.


This anonymous “canon lawyer” considers my statement as a proof of my schismatic will: but the whole question concerns which is the “church” to which Bergoglio belongs and the de facto schism from the true Church that he has already accomplished over and over again with his declarations, with his acts of government, and with his most eloquent behavior of open hostility to all that is Catholic. Bergoglio’s “church” is not the Catholic Church, but rather that “conciliar church” born from Vatican Council II and recently rebranded with the no less heretical name of “synodal church.” If it is from this “church” that I am declared to be separated by schism, it will be for me a cause for honor and pride.


+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

June 21, 2024S.

Aloisii Gonzagæ Confessoris

247 views

3 Comments


mcpruden
Jun 26

"...the Dicastery, whose authority I do not recognize, nor do I recognize the authority of its Prefect, nor do I recognize the authority of the one who appointed him." Abp. Vigano.


I think Vigano has just declared his own schism. That statement seems to say he has stopped being in communion with the Pope. I wonder whose Pope's name he mentions at the "una cum" part of the Canon of the Mass?

Like

Gene Thomas Gomulka
Gene Thomas Gomulka
Jun 22

Vigano’s current case reminds me of my own back in November 2002 when gay then-archbishop Edwin O’Brien called me to DC from Hawaii after I wrote and told him I had confided in family and friends how he had been covering up the predation of Father Matt Lee whom I reported to him back on May 6, 2002. I brought all the evidence with me to the meeting, but O’Brien did not want to see or read it. Instead, he wanted me to undergo a psychological evaluation. I thought, it’s Matt Lee whose preying on sailors and you who are covering up for him that need to be psychoanalized. When I demanded he put in writing the reasons he felt…

Like

jmj4today
Jun 22

Looks like the Vatican is biting its fingernails knowing that Vigano, while in good standing with the Church, might expose more facts about Francis, so Rome wants to dump and discredit him as soon as possible.

Like
SHOP NOW - SUPPORT THE DAILY KNIGHT
Featured Posts