I’ve spent the weekend absorbing the explosive testimony of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, who claims that many people in the Vatican, including Pope Francis, ignored the homosexual harassment and abuse of adult seminarians by Theodore Cardinal McCarrick.

Viganò makes a lot of factual claims in his statement, and Catholic media is struggling to confirm or disprove as many of them as possible. (The mainstream media is transparently not bothering; they are instead investigating Viganò personally.) I am having trouble keeping track of all of it, and I’ll bet you are, too.

This thread is simply an attempt to gather all the relevant documents into one place where I can keep them all straight.

I am no longer actively updating this listing, as I feel we have covered the main questions of the original Vigano testimony pretty well, and the core questions of fact are settled. Have I missed anything? Let me know in the comments!

Do you have unpublished information that you want to share? You can contact me at my Gmail account (username “james.j.heaney”). My account is as secure as a Google email account can be. Is that insufficient? Then contact J.D. Flynn, editor-in-chief of Catholic News Agency, at his encrypted, secured email address: c831news@tutanota.de. (Be sure to contact him from a secure, encrypted email address of your own; I recommend signing up for a free encrypted account from tutanota.com.)

I. The Testimony

The Testimony Itself

Testimony of Carlo Maria Vigano, 22 August 2018

A Useful Supplement

A friend of mine, Charles Corbett, put together a remarkably detailed Google Spreadsheet laying out the timeline of events and (perhaps most importantly) personnel assignments in various offices during the period discussed in Vigano’s testimony. He’s still expanding it, but check it out!

Did Pope Benedict sanction Cardinal McCarrick?

Yes, he did, but they were informal rather than formal sanctions. This was much disputed for weeks (as the links below show), but the facts were clearly established by Cardinal Ouellet in his letter of 7 October 2018:

The former Cardinal, retired in May of 2006, had been requested not to travel or to make public appearances, in order to avoid new rumors about him. It is false, therefore, to present those measures as “sanctions” formally imposed by Pope Benedict XVI and then invalidated by Pope Francis… [T]he letters from my predecessor and my own letters urged him, first through the Apostolic Nuncio Pietro Sambi and then through you, to lead a life of prayer and penance, for his own good and for the good of the Church.

Ed Pentin, National Catholic Register, 25 August 2018 confirms sanctions:

The Register has independently confirmed that the allegations against McCarrick were certainly known to Benedict, and the Pope Emeritus remembers instructing Cardinal Bertone to impose measures but cannot recall their exact nature.

Die Tagespost, 28 August 2018: Archbishop Gänswein, private secretary to Pope Benedict, denies any direct papal comment on the overall testimony [GERMAN – Google Translated] (notably, this isn’t exactly what the Register claimed):

“Pope Benedict has not commented on the ‘memorandum’ of Archbishop Viganò and will not do so,” Gänswein told the newspaper. The claim that the emeritus Pope had confirmed the statements lacked any foundation. “Fake news!” Says Gänswein.

Ed Pentin, National Catholic Register, 28 August 2018, “Archbishop Gänswein’s Comments Were Correct and We Stand By Our Reporting“:

“Archbishop Gänswein did not go into any more details, but he did not refute that Benedict issued sanctions. The Register fully stands by its reporting, drawn on sources close to the Pope Emeritus, that sanctions were issued by Benedict against McCarrick.”

Ed Pentin, National Catholic Register, 31 August 2018, “Further Questions Emerge About Benedict XVI’s Sanctions on McCarrick.”

As far as Benedict could recall, the source said the instruction was essentially that McCarrick should keep a ‘low profile.’ There was ‘no formal decree, just a private request.’ …McCarrick continued to be “very able” and “influential at high levels — ecclesiastical, cultural and political” and so could ignore the sanctions imposed upon him.

Lisa Bourne, LifeSiteNews, “EXCLUSIVE: Viganó doubles down: McCarrick was restricted under Benedict, but ‘he didn’t obey.’”

Although LifeSiteNews is a bad, often dishonest source, it is impossible for this page to ignore their exclusive interview with Vigano, in which Vigano explains several instances where McCarrick was seen to violate the alleged sanctions on him.

Ed Condon, Catholic News Agency, “Former nunciature official: ‘Vigano said the truth’“, 26 August 2018

This piece simply reports that Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, named several times in the Vigano testimony, confirms the testimony.

Lantheaume, former first counselor at the nunciature in Washington, thus confirms that he overheard a shouted conversation wherein Nuncio Sambi informed Cardinal McCarrick of Vatican sanctions placed upon him. This also confirms a conversation Lantheaume had with Cardinal McCarrick in July 2013, where McCarrick used words that Vigano alleges were very similar to words used by Pope Francis in June 2013.

Lantheume Facebook Chat Excerpts, posted by Hilary White, What’s Up With The Synod?, 27 August 2018

These excerpts include a screenshot, but screenshots can be easily doctored, and the source is not highly reputable, so this must be considered unconfirmed.

Fr. Matt Malone, S.J., America, 26 August 2018, “McCarrick’s public behavior showed zero indications of sanctions” [mirrored from Twitter]

Between 2011, when Vigano says McCarrick was already under sanction, and 2013, when Pope Benedict resigned, McCarrick acted in ways that clearly violated the sanctions Vigano says were imposed upon him, including directly in front of Pope Benedict. He preached at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, joined the American bishops’ ad limina visit to the Vatican, and other events that demonstrate McCarrick was either brazenly flouting his sanctions or did not have any.

Nicole Winfield, A.P., 28 August 2018, “Pope’s alleged cover-up pivots on if and when sanctions were imposed on McCarrick”

“The historical record is rife with evidence that McCarrick had lived under no such restrictions. He traveled widely, including for Catholic Relief Services, the humanitarian branch of the U.S. church. He went to Iran in 2011 with a religious delegation to try to win the release of two American hikers arrested after crossing the border. He celebrated Mass publicly. He traveled to Rome with the entire U.S. conference of bishops for their once-every-five-year visit in 2012 and was even on hand for Benedict’s final general audience on Feb. 27, 2013.

In a 2010 video posted on YouTube, McCarrick was shown visiting the national seminary in Haiti that had been damaged earlier by the devastating 7.0-magnitude earthquake. ‘The boys are still living in tents,’ McCarrick said as young Haitian seminarians were shown milling about.”

Michelle Boorstein, Washington Post, 31 July 2018, “As rumors of sexual misdeeds swirled, Cardinal McCarrick became a powerful fundraiser for the Vatican”

This story predates the Vigano testimony, but contains a remarkable passage near the end:

“McCarrick retired as archbishop shortly after he turned 75, in 2006. It’s standard for bishops to offer their retirement to the Vatican at that age, but it’s common for them to keep working for years if both sides wish. McCarrick was a hard-working striver whose routine didn’t appear to slow until very recently.

“He remained extremely active in the church, traveling on diplomatic missions, fundraising and officiating weddings and baptisms.

“The person who worked with McCarrick [“a person active in church organizations who collaborated on causes with McCarrick”] said they suspect church leaders in Rome had chastised McCarrick in some way, telling him to pull back from public life.

“‘But he did whatever he damn well wanted,’ the person said.”

This could refer to the sanctions allegedly Benedict placed on McCarrick in 2009 or 2010, but, given the timing, more likely refers to the sanctions Cardinal Wuerl allegedly placed on McCarrick in 2017 or 2018.

David Gibson, Religion News Service, 21 June 2014. “Globe-trotting Cardinal Theodore McCarrick is almost 84 and working harder than ever“

This is suggestive, but no more than that:

“McCarrick is one of a number of senior churchmen who were more or less put out to pasture during the eight-year pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI. But now Francis is pope, and prelates like Cardinal Walter Kasper (another old friend of McCarrick’s) and McCarrick himself are back in the mix and busier than ever.”

Did Vigano Tell Pope Francis About McCarrick?

It seems pretty unlikely we’ll be able to prove this one way or another, but we can look at Vigano’s account of his meetings with Pope Francis and see what can be proved.

Catholic News Service, 29 August 2018, “Pope Meets Archbishop Vigano.”

This accords with Vigano’s account of his meeting, except that Pope Francis just doesn’t seem as unfriendly as Vigano presented him. The timing of the cutaway is very unfortunate.

When did Rome learn about McCarrick’s abuse of adult seminarians?

Joan Desmond, National Catholic Register, 28 August 2018, “Whistleblower Father Boniface Ramsey Reacts to Archbishop Viganò’s Letter“

Confirms Viganò’s claim that, with some prompting from then-nuncio Archbishop Montalvo, Fr. Boniface Ramsey sent a letter to the nunciature in 2000 notifying them of McCarrick’s abuse. Viganò further asserts that the letter was swiftly passed on to Rome, but Fr. Ramsey has no knowledge of that.

Gerard O’Connell, America, 30 August 2018, “Vatican officials refuse to discuss Viganò’s letter, encourage journalists to study it.”

“Apart from the question of the sanctions, America has learned from a Vatican source that even before John Paul II appointed Archbishop Theodore McCarrick to Washington, D.C., in 2000, it was already known by some in the Secretariat of State, and perhaps in other parts of the Roman Curia, too, that the archbishop was taking seminarians to his beach house.”

What did Cardinal Wuerl know and when did he know it?

Ed Condon, Catholic News Agency, “Where did retired McCarrick live after seminary?”

Statement of the Archdiocese of Washington on the Testimony, 27 August 2018, denying direct knowledge of any sanctions

Christopher Altieri, Catholic Herald, 27 August 2018, “Spokesman confirms Cardinal Wuerl cancelled meeting”

Vigano stated in his testimony that he called Cardinal Wuerl to request that an event between McCarrick and seminarians be cancelled, saying that it was clear to him that Wuerl understood why this was necessary. An archdiocese spokesman confirms that the cancellation took place, but not that the cardinal knew the reasons why.

Ed Condon, Catholic News Agency, 30 August 2018, “Seminarians were McCarrick aides amid abuse investigation.”

What did Cardinal Tobin know and when did he know it?

Letter of Cardinal Tobin to Newark Priests, 17 August 2018. [imgur mirror]

“…no one — including the anonymous ‘sources’ cited in the article — has ever spoken to me about a gay subculture in the Archdiocese of Newark.”

Mike Kelley, New Jersey Record, 31 August 2018, “The secret life of Catholic Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and reports of sex abuse”

Cardinal Tobin claims he was not told about the McCarrick settlements and that he had heard “rumors” about McCarrick’s beach house, but dismissed them as incredible.

This story also claims that Tobin is launching an internal investigation to find out why he wasn’t told these things. If truly independent, the investigation will likely tell us whether he is lying about any of this.

What else did Viganò say that has been corroborated or denied?

Letter of Archbishop Cordileone (San Francisco), 29 August 2018, with a very vague statement that corroborates… something:

“Moreover, while having no privileged information about the Archbishop McCarrick situation, from information I do have about a very few of the other statements Archbishop Viganò makes, I can confirm that they are true.  His statements, therefore, must be taken seriously.”

II. Viganò’s Credibility

Why did Vigano do this?

Aldo Maria Valli, 27 August 2018, “Archbishop Vigano gave me his testimony. This is why I published it.” [Italian original – English translation here]

Aldo Maria Valli, 29 August 2018, “Vigano Speaks: ‘I am not the crow and I do not want revenge.’” [Italian original – English translation here]

Michael Sean Winters, 26 August 2018, “Vigano letter exposes the putsch against Pope Francis”

This piece violates my “primary sources only” rule with, essentially, speculation and imputed malevolence, but I felt it important to represent the strong pro-Francis narrative that says Vigano is doing this for ideological reasons.

Did Viganò quash the Nienstedt Investigation?

Memo of Fr. Dan Griffith to Bishops Piché and Cozzens, 7 July 2014

Pages 5 and 6 are quite damning toward Viganò, based on the account given Fr. Griffith by Bishops Cozzens and Piche.

Affidavit of Jennifer Haselberger, 14 July 2014. Noted here principally for the striking statement:

“…it was and is my opinion that the worst possible situation from a child protection standpoint would be one where Bishop Piché would assume even temporary governance of the Archdiocese. I say this because, in my experience, Bishop Piché was a bigger obstacle than Father McDonough to any sort of movement towards truly implementing the requirements of the Charter.”

Letter from Archbishop Vigano to Cardinal Ouellet, 13 November 2014 [ITALIAN]

Translation of the above letter into English [mostly Google Translate with a little help from me]

Letter from Bishop Piché to Cardinal Ouellet, 20 November 2014

Jennifer Haselberger says what she knows of the investigation, 17 June 2015

New York Times reports on Griffith Memo, 21 July 2016. (The Memo was released that week after legal agreement with Ramsey County attorney to end criminal investigation of Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis.)

Statement of Archbishop Vigano on the Nienstedt Affair, 26 August 2018

Response of Fr. Dan Griffith to Vigano’s Statement, 28 August 2018

“I stand by my July 2014 memo to Bishop Lee Piche.”

John Allen, Crux, 31 August 2018, “Questions Still Surround Papal Accusers’s Role in Nienstedt Probe.”

Mostly notable for the revelations that Cardinals Dolan and O’Malley were aware of the allegations against Nienstedt, specifically that O’Malley personally asked the Pope to accept his resignation.

Bishop Cozzens’ Statement, 31 August 2018

“When Bishop Piché and I believed that we were being told by the nuncio to close the investigation, we strenuously objected. When the nuncio clarified that we should focus the investigation and complete it, we did so.”

Is Viganò now in hiding?

BBC, 28 August 2018, “Pope critic Archbishop Vigano ‘in hiding’”

…but he sure gives a lot of interviews for a guy in hiding.

III. Pope Francis’s Credibility

What has Pope Francis said about the Viganò testimony?

Full Text of Pope Francis’s In-Flight Press Conference, 26 August 2018, in which Pope Francis refuses to comment on the testimony.

Has Pope Francis tolerated abusers in the past?

SNAP, 16 June 2014, “Pope Francis will meet with the wrong people”

“Ariazco never got a reply when she wrote to then-Cardinal Bergoglio. Cuattromo was rebuffed when he sought help from then-Cardinal Bergoglio. And Varela was belittled by Bergoglio’s staff and forcibly removed from Bergoglio’s office by security.”

Ana Delicado, Publico, 3 May 2013, “The Pope Covered Up Priest’s Abuse of My Son.”

Carol Glatz, Catholic Herald, 15 September 2015, “Vatican releases list of participants for Synod on the Family.” Significant because Pope Francis specifically and personally invited disgraced Cardinal Danneels of Belgium, who was caught on tape trying to protect a sex abuser from criminal charges.

The Local (Spain), 20 November 2014, “‘Paedophile Priests’ acted like a cult: report.” In this story, the Pope heard an accusation and intervened directly in the case to ensure it was fully investigated. (Ultimately, the story was not corroborated and a the accused was acquitted, but the papal intervention still spoke well of Francis’s interest in preventing and punishing abuse.)

Nicole Winfield, Associated Press, “Pope quietly trims sanctions for sex abusers seeking mercy,” describing how Pope Francis relaxed penalties Pope Benedict had imposed on abusers and discarded recommendations of his own sex abuse panel to deal with abusive bishops.

Der Spiegel, September 2018, “The Silence of the Shepherds,” a fairly devastating cover story, from a formerly sympathetic newspaper, describing Pope Francis’s abdication of leadership.

You’re following the Alfie Evans case, right?

They’re killing that boy. Don’t try to Philippa Foot me about the difference between “killing” and “letting die.” The U.K. didn’t let Alfie die. They usurped the right of medical decisionmaking from Alfie’s parents, in violation of their fundamental human rights. They decided, based on their bloodless utilitarian ethics (so much for the neutrality of the secular state in questions of conscience!), that it would be best for Alfie to die, and then  they deployed armed officials of the State to prevent anyone from trying to save him — especially the boy’s own parents. They aren’t innocent bystanders simply watching Alfie, helpless to save him without extraordinary aid; they are active participants in a flagrant attack on the fundamental human rights of Alfie’s parents. They have made every effort to prevent Alfie from receiving extraordinary aid offered (at no cost to them) by, variously, Alfie’s parents, the Catholic Church, and the government of Italy. I am by no means convinced that Alfie’s parents’ proposed course of treatment is, objectively, the right call, but, in the absence of neglect or abuse (as traditionally understood), his parents are the only ones with the right to make that call. The British state’s interposition — not to save Alfie’s life but to ensure that it ends — is unconscionable.

Between this and Charlie Gard, the United States should impose sanctions on the barbaric United Kingdom. Even if it means I don’t get to watch Broadchurch anymore.

Let’s get to it, then.

Loser: The British monarchy. What the devil is the point of having a Queen if she doesn’t intervene to protect one of her subjects in a case decided in her own name? In this populist era, I’ve been sympathetic to the idea of a head-of-state who isn’t democratically elected or appointed. But if that just means having a national figurehead who smiles at state dinners and does nothing to embody or uphold the basic principles of the nation… well, forget it. If this is what Blackstone’s “rights of Englishmen” have come to, I’ll stick with my messy Republic. Unlike most of the Commonwealth states, we still have freedom of speech in America, too, and I suspect that, too, is related to our fanatical constitutionalism. Speaking of which…

Winner: The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. I agree with the Supreme Court that the Second Amendment encompasses a broad individual right to bear arms for self-defense, particularly against the sort of tyranny we’ve been known to establish here in the United States. But, after a litany of mass shootings in the past several years, I have occasionally wondered whether the Second Amendment is, on balance, a good thing. I have considered whether it would be a good idea to repeal it, then introduce some of the gun control measures it currently prohibits. (Much of the gun control debate annoys me because so many gun controllers are so dishonest about their desire to make the Second Amendment a dead letter without going through the mandatory constitutional amendment process… but serious arguments for repeal deserve to be considered seriously.)

The Alfie Evans case, however, is a stark reminder of the importance of the Constitution’s last bastion against tyranny. The American court system wouldn’t dare try to substitute its prudential judgment for a parents’. It wouldn’t even cross the American court system’s mind. We would not tolerate it if it tried. Deep down, Washington knows this — and it knows we have the tools — pardon, I should say, the arsenal — to enforce our judgment. Thus, an Alfie Evans case is unthinkable here.

Do you doubt me? Then imagine what would happen if Alfie Evans lived in Nevada, not Liverpool, and that his father was not affable Tom Evans but instead Cliven Bundy. I’m not certain how it would have played out, and I’m not at all confident it would have ended in a more just outcome, but it certainly wouldn’t have ended with helpless parents and helplessly supporters standing helplessly by while the State starves a child on a whim. (Hey, bee tee dubs, food and water are not extraordinary means; withholding basic sustenance is not the same as turning off a ventilator. Forced starvation is murder, plain and simple.) Everyone knows this, and this provides a check on the State that tends to keep us from even getting into confrontations like this. So, today, I thanked God for the Second Amendment.

Loser: Universal health care. While I’m disclosing heresies I’ve recently considered, here’s another for you: I’ve been toying with the idea of single-payer health care, or one of the various other flavors of “state-run health system” that the Democrats keep pitching. I’m as convinced as ever that such a system would be rotten, corrupt, and numbingly expensive, and that we could do far, far better with a market-oriented reform that empowers states to follow something closer to the Singapore model. But the current system is also rotten, corrupt, and numbingly expensive, and, last summer, Republicans blew their last chance to pass a market reform for a generation. In a choice between market-guided health reform and Obamacare, I’ll choose the markets every time. But in a choice between a terrible single-payer system and Obamacare? It’s not as clear to me that “Medicare for All” would actually be worse, at least on the individual market. (Like most Americans, I’m very happy with my employer-provided health insurance, but, like most Americans, I’m terrified of what would happen to my family if I lost my job and I were thrown into the horror show of individual-market medical insurance.) So I’ve been thinking seriously about whether, given the abject failure of Republican reform, adopting a universal health care model or a “public option” might be a better path than continuing into the thicket of Obamacare cost increases.

But the Alfie Evans case reminds me that government-run health care isn’t just a question of maximizing efficiency, minimizing costs, and extending flexible coverage networks. (Pray for me, for I really am a technocrat at heart.) Putting the State in charge of life and death for every citizen also entails a vast cultural change. A change that tends to leave the State with a very high opinion of itself. Given Godlike power over its citizens, is it any wonder that the British State decided to take the place of Alfie’s God-given parents and sentence the child to death? We must never grant the American State the same power over our children. Maybe truly ground-up, state-based universal health care (like Vermont’s failed proposal) could work without sending us into Light Yagami territory, but the Alfie case persuades me that a proposal like Sen. Sanders’ national “Medicare for All” plan must be resisted absolutely.

Winner: His Holiness, Pope Francis I. Say what you will about the Francis papacy. I don’t have to, because I’ve got Ross Douthat saying it all for me. But the Pope has acquitted himself well in this case. His direct intervention may very well have led to Alfie receiving Italian citizenship at the last second, his placement of the Church’s resources at Alfie’s disposal was a generous gift, and his simple moral witness in the case has been profound. My opinion of Francis, the pope, has (if anything) worsened since I wrote this post, but this once again proves that Francis, the man, remains a compassionate Christian of principle and courage who will probably get to Heaven before I do. It’s always nice to be reminded of that, especially in the wake of his shameful conduct in Chile (which was, sadly, all too familiar anyway). Pope Francis was a good look for the Catholic Church this week.

Loser: The authority of experts. “Alfie has no chance of improvement, so we must let him die” the doctors said. “He will die within minutes of his ventilator being turned off,” they also said.

36 hours later, the second claim has been definitively refuted — at this writing, Alfie is still alive and still breathing on his own. So why on Earth would anyone believe the first claim anymore? Nobody even knows what condition Alfie has, yet these “experts” who couldn’t even let him die correctly are telling us with certainty that there is no possibility of recovery, now or in the future?

Yes, there’s now some revisionist history going around where the doctors claim they knew all along Alfie could last longer than a few minutes. This is a lie. The court records are perfectly clear: Alfie’s medical team asserted repeatedly that Alfie was “100% dependent” on mechanical respiration and that, even in the “unlikely” event that he “can breathe without assistance,” “his respiratory effort will not sustain life.” This was a key finding of fact in Mr. Justice Hayden’s original ruling against Alfie. And it was completely, wonderfully wrong.

A casual observer might reasonably suspect that Mr. Justice Hayden and the Alder Hey medical team need Alfie Evans to die now, because Alfie’s survival would deeply discredit them and their entire system.

EDIT: See update at bottom of article.

Winner: “Lebensunwertes Leben.” Mr. Justice Hayden’s ruling is uncommonly kind to Alfie’s father, who did foolish things judges hate like representing himself. Mr. Justice Hayden’s words about Alfie and his parents are compassionate and generous. I have no doubt that he was well-intentioned. Yet his ruling, along with his subsequent rulings preventing anyone from helping Alfie, have struck a tremendous blow for the old doctrine that “life unworthy of life” should be terminated.

To be sure, the medical facts in this case still leave it one step removed from the Nazi position that handicapped kids should be actively sought out and killed for their own good. Yet I think not enough people recognize what a very short leap it is from this to that. Mr. Justice Hayden’s kindly words carry most of the key ingredients of a full-blown ideology of death.

As the original “medical futility” justification for the ruling against Alfie continues to erode, and the State is gradually exposed as being stubborn for the sake of saving face, the way Mr. Justice Hayden has gutted the very notion of parental rights becomes all the more terrifying. When the U.K. legalizes euthanasia (and, as a post-Christian nation, is this not inevitable?), it is difficult to see how the legal principles articulated in this case could avoid being extended to justify the State actively killing disabled children, against the will of their parents, even if their parents promised to care for them on their own dime. Even the Belgian euthanasia project hasn’t made such a bold attack on patient autonomy and guardian rights yet.

Loser: Alfie Evans.  They’re killing that boy.

UPDATE 26 April 2018: The Liverpool Echo, which is a division of the Daily Mirror so take it with a grain of salt, asserts that, during an oral hearing in the case, one doctor asked to testify said, “Once ventilation is removed, then depending on the situation of the child, we may have a period where they breathe for hours, days, sometimes much less.” This is obviously much closer to the truth than what other experts quoted in the final ruling said. Michael Mylonas, QC’s claim that instantaneous death was “never suggested” is still obvious rubbish, but it seems important to note that at least one expert got this right.

I think that the majority of living Catholics have become very used to living with popes who have earned the cognomen “the Great,” and it is pretty shocking for us young’uns to realize that — except for times of great grace — the pope is pretty much just a bishop with a bigger audience.

I think that we learn whom to love as often by whom are enemies hate as whom our friends love. When our enemies fall in love with someone, it is not easy to regard the object of their affections without profound suspicion. This does not reflect well on us, however.

I think sometimes people fall in love despite the fact that it makes no sense at all. This can be at the prompting of grace. It is confusing for everyone — the lover, the loved, and everybody looking on. The lover, in particular, tries to explain the origins of her love in terms that make sense to herself, even though those terms are clearly and completely inapplicable. And those of us on the sidelines see those terms — nonsense terms like, “Finally, a pope who loves women!” “Thanks for being pro-choice, Pope Francis!” — and can’t understand why they didn’t love the theologically similar Pope Benedict the way we do. 

(But, then, I’m not certain I can explain quite why I love Papa Benny the way I do.)

I think churchmen should not, as a rule, speak extemporaneously urbi et orbi. EOTT, as always, says it best. We learned this in the aftermath of Vatican II; I would prefer not to have to learn it again.

I think we are at war not with the culture, but with the devil, who has many unwitting pawns at his disposal. It is worth trying to lure them away to our side with the right kinds of words, rather than trying to conquer them with unyielding arguments. It is worth remembering that Lucifer is smarter than all of us; we cannot out-argue the Enemy. The only thing we can do is out-love him. It will be interesting to see whether this newest effort bears any real fruit. Pope Francis is a better person than I am; he might just be on to something.

I think those who would destroy the Church have spent many years attacking it by opposing it, and they have noticed that this stopped working a couple decades ago. Realizing that Catholicism is resurgent everywhere, I think they are trying a new tactic: destroying the Church by enthusiastically misinterpreting it. (Or is that really a new tactic? It was the dominant Enemy strategy from the Council to Humanae Vitae.)

I think Pope Francis hails from a very different world than the Euro-American universe of encroaching secularism and weak-kneed pastoral leadership, and that, at least partly as a result, he misunderstands his flock as much as his flock misunderstands him. I hope that this is all straightened out soon, and (perhaps?) that the Pope Emeritus — probably the most broadly and deeply European pope in centuries — will have a few words of advice for the Pope when next they meet.

I think there’s much reason to be anxious, but little reason to be disappointed — and several reasons to be very happy.