"I'm a Catholic."
"I'm a Unitarian."
"I'm a Baptist."
"I'm a Buddhist."
"I'm a Wiccan."
"I'm an agnostic."
These days that tells you very little. There's a world of difference, for example, between an orthodox Catholic who embraces Church doctrines on life and marriage and a cafeteria "progressive" Catholic who identifies as pro-choice and pro-same-sex marriage." The progressive Catholic may have more in common with the Wiccan, the secular Jew, or the Unitarian than with the orthodox Catholic.
Which means we always need to be critical thinkers and look beyond the labels.
What's going on? Can we trust what people say about themselves? Do they have hidden motives? Are they what I call "wet finger people" testing the winds to decide which way to trim their sails?
I thought about that as I read the article below by Michael Warren Davis, Be Careful about Lionizing Vigano. I've been a Vigano fan and this article certainly isn't going to lead me to throw him under the bus. But it's not the first article questioning Vigano's motives, and I agree with the author's statement that, "as a matter of professional ethics, I don’t trust anyone." Or as Ronald Reagan put it, "Trust but verify." Davis offers three possible alternative conclusion's about Vigano's involvement in the McCarrick mess. The first two he thinks are unlikely:
The third is that Viganò, as a senior Vatican diplomat, was afraid to take on McCarrick directly. He declined to investigate the powerful prelate because he feared professional reprisals from the Cardinal’s allies in Rome. Instead, he continued ingratiating himself to McCarrick for the sake of his career, occasionally reminding the Vatican of McCarrick’s perverse behavior in the hopes that a more senior official would take action directly. Given what we know so far, this is the only conclusion that makes any real sense.
Is he right? I'm not in a position to say, but I think his opinion is worth listening to.
It's still possible that, as Vigano has said numerous times, his age and proximity to the Personal Judgment motivated his actions. On the other hand....is he the new "rock star" of the traditionalist movement?Are we living in a "ghetto" closed off to the rest of the Church?:
Is traditionalist Catholicism a mature movement, capable of scrutinizing its own leaders? Or is it a series of interlocking personality cults? If one of its champions falls, will he drag down all the others?
These are important questions worth asking.
So read the article and let me know what you think.
Be Careful About Lionizing Viganò