Introduction by Marco Tosatti

Marco Tosatti: The commitment of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America, to denounce the veil of silence and cover-ups in the management of abuse cases by members of the clergy, is well known. The spicy and annoyed response by the Vatican authorities – and in particular of various prelates – to the well-argued refutations of the combative prelate is also well known. In this interview, we investigate with His Excellency the developments in the case of former Cardinal McCarrick, also in light of a recent article at Church Militant entitled The McCarrick Bombshell.^[1]

“If it is possible for this Pope to be for all practical purposes schismatic – and I would say also heretical – why could not that  Council also have been so?” - Archbishop Viganò 

Introduction by Michael J. Matt: If in the long history of the Catholic Church there has been an event more vigorously contested among faithful Catholics than the Second Vatican Council, I’d like to know what it is. Some would argue that, some fifty years after the fact, the Council is emerging as the most polarizing event in Church history.

That the Council has been at the center of so much division and indeed confusion since its close in 1965 will be, perhaps, reason enough to prompt a future pope to declare its novel teachings null and void. But until that happens, faithful Catholics on both sides of the debate are left to rummage through the scattered fragments left in the wake of Vatican II explosion and try to make a Church out of them again.

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.

The disinterestedness of the judging body