Ed Feser: Why Archbishop Viganò is almost certainly telling the truth… #V

Very smart philosopher Edward Feser has posted his assessment of The Viganò Testimony.  I won’t go into detail.  You can visit over there.  However, let’s see where he goes:

There are five considerations that seem to me to make it very likely that Archbishop Viganò’s testimony is truthful. To be sure, given how numerous and detailed are the claims he makes, it would not be surprising if he has gotten certain particulars wrong. And perhaps in his passion he has inadvertently overstated things here and there. But the main claims are probably true. I certainly do not believe he is lying.

Feser’s reasons are these:

1. The deafening silence of Pope Francis
2. The apparent silence of Pope Benedict
3. Archbishop Viganò’s concern for his own place in history and his immortal soul
4. Pope Francis’s record
5. The response of Viganò’s critics

BTW… speaking of Viganò (whose name is pronounced “vee-gah-NOH”) I saw at Fr. Hunwicke’s place an amusing suggestion:

A distinguished brother priest has sent me a picture of Churchill giving his “V for Victory” sign, together with a suggestion that V stands both for Victory and for Vigano.

This simple gesture could be used at Papal Public Audiences, Diocesan synods, Deanery meetings; whenever a speaker (or homilist) says something implicitly critical of Archbishop Vigano ..

Of course you heard about the lone person in St. Peter’s Square shouting “VIGANO!” during the Angelus Address.   This is a little quieter.  (Cigar optional)


I saw this on Twitter.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Francis, The Drill and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. bobbird says:

    Of course, some people will think we are giving the “Peace Sign” of the 60s. Even earlier in the 50s, it was an invitation at a stop light for two hot-rodders to drag race when the light turned green. There are other gestures possible, two of which come immediately to mind, but should only be used — in a secular setting.

  2. Benedict Joseph says:

    Archbishop Viganò’s testimony is entirely credible. He makes himself complicit to the degree that he regards his intervention over the years to have been ineffective. He places himself in the crosshairs of multiple actors — no less the pope, upon whom he also calls to step down. Why would any elderly man sooner to leave temporal existence than not do such a thing. All regard him as sound of mind and judgement.
    Now I read today that he is likely to face disciplinary response, but I see no mention of a trial. Why would that be? What is there to fear from a public hearing? I find the flagrant abuse of authority an admission in itself of guilt, and others surely will as well. After all, the butler got his day in court.

  3. scotus says:

    And is the hat also optional?
    I suspect that the two uses referred to by bobbird are American and will not be applicable in other countries. Certainly not in the UK. But we know, of course, that it originated as a sign used by English archers towards the French.

  4. Cafea Fruor says:

    @Benedict Joseph: What a messed up situation that is if Archbishop Viganò, rather than McCarrick, is facing disciplinary action. That alone confirms in my mind that Viganò is on the money.

  5. JabbaPapa says:

    A good homily for the present times, from just before the scandals — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhUe5k8CNf8

    How sad to see how we can have lost so much so quickly from so many failures of that murder of ravens in the Holy See …

  6. Malta says:

    @Cafea Fruor: very true. Those who are trying to clean-up the Church are disciplined, while the perverts in the Lavender Mafia are promoted. I know this from personal experience. As I’ve said before here, my Spiritual Adviser, an absolutely brilliant Priest, was severely reduced in his faculties after he outed a pedophile priest who he witnessed with his own eyes abusing a boy.

  7. tho says:

    That is a great idea, V for Vigano. To be used silently, and in a short while it will have universal recognition. Much more dignified than shouting or being obscene.

  8. Benedict Joseph says:

    Cafea Fruor: My take as well. Their multiple thoughtless reactions bespeak utter desperation. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that Archbishop Viganò’s testimony is the truth as best he can present it — my conviction grows stronger each day.
    God preserve him.

  9. JabbaPapa says:

    I have to be careful with this one.

    The Pope is preaching a theology of radical disdain towards the Faithful.

    And he claims this, whether overtly or implicitly, to be somehow virtuous, as if only the magic clergy of the Holy See should have such mundane sovereignty, against the constant teachings to us of our Angels Guardian from God, faithful in spiritual perfection to all love in teaching in the Logos Himself.

    But it seems to me that the only possible fruit of such a vine that the Pope provides in these who-am-I-to-judge confusions, and deliberate confusions at that, must be division ; and so de facto, the active promotion of schism is the product of this Pontificate.

    Yes — that is a hard teaching.

    I have no desire whatsoever to type the following, which instead saddens and begrieves me — oh please my Lord Christ and you Michael, Captain of Archangels, bring iron toughness into our Love for you and strength against the Adversary in the Will of our Father !!

    A schism is manifesting amongst us.

    Please pray with all your strength for those who are being seduced through softness away from the Christ and from the Faith.

  10. Thomas says:

    This reminds me of the famous non-denial, denial from the Nixon days. A non-denial, denial is defined as “an on-the-record statement, usually made by a politician, repudiating a journalist’s story, but in such a way as to leave open the possibility that it is actually true”. For example, if you call me a bigamist and I reply: that is just an outrageous statement sir, you are just trying to hurt my reputation!!! Now, nowhere did I say it wasn’t true.

  11. I certainly believe Vigano and when someone doesn’t believe what he said then I am very suspicious of that person. Vigano is no coward!

  12. Fr. Kelly says:

    Let me add my voice to bobbird re the V for Victory.

    Please, before one uses it for Vigano, please turn the hand around so that the palm, not the back is facing forward.

    As a boy growing up in Ireland I came to recognize the sign in Churchill’s picture in which he shows the back of the hand with two fingers up, as a rather crude gesture which ” should only be used — in a secular setting.”

    Here in the US, this sign is almost universally given with only one finger, and the direction of the hand seems not to matter, but where I grew up it shows the back of the hand and means the same whether one or two fingers are being held up.

    I am quite sure his Excellency Archbishop Vigano would not want to be associated with what over a large part of the world can be mistaken easily for a crude and obscene gesture.

  13. TonyO says:

    Like father, like son? Or, in this case, like son. like (Holy) father? Earlier this year Cardinal Cupich, a favorite of Team Francis, punished a pastor accused of immoral acts with an adult. He did so before there was a trial, and without the benefit of an investigation. The appearance given is that Cupich has some animus against Fr. Phillips, such as he hates the old Mass and everything that Fr. Phillips stands for. If, as Rorate Caeli suggests, Vigano may be punished without trial, then it’s more of the same sort of thing as with Fr. Phillips, though on a more visible playing field.

    Pope Francis’ FIRST move should have been to order a clean and influence-free investigation into the allegations. But no, he doesn’t want THAT. Why not?

  14. Malta says:

    @Fr. Kelly: Churchill didn’t know the vulgar meaning of that sign; two young ladies did, and had to explain it to him! He became embarrassed!

  15. Late for heaven says:

    Like many, I am anguished at the most recent revelations of the actions of the Church hierarchy but not surprised. For forty years I watched the dilution of dogma and I happily colluded in it; I contracepted and shed many other quaint outdated catholic notions. I knew the Church was wrong because so many of her enemies loudly proclaimed the falsity of her teaching. In fact, the only way I knew Catholic teaching was from listening to the diatribes against it.

    But one day my Protestant friend told me about the iniquitous encyclical Humanae Vitae, and insisted that I read it. I had never heard of this document. I reluctantly did so and dutifully denounced its contents. But I couldn’t help noticing how prescient it is, and how beautiful. Slowly I realized how I had turned my back on my faith and supported all those who lied about it. I am an enabler. I knew about church teachings but never tried to find out why she taught them. I didn’t want to know. I didn’t want to obey.

    My dream is to kneel in St Peter’s Square in sackcloth and ashes and invite everyone to join me. Mea culpa

  16. Gaetano says:

    V for Veritas.
    We just want the truth.

  17. Fr. Kelly says:

    I expect that you are right. Churchill used the gesture as an iconic sign of Britain’s indomitable will to resist and ultimately conquer her foes. He most certainly would not want that meaning to be diluted with vulgar references.

  18. Chuck4247 says:

    V for Vigano…
    V for Veritas…
    What about:
    V for Vendetta? McCarrick seems to remind me of a bishop from that movie…

    (This is not me, nor anyone else condoning murder, btw…)

  19. Charivari Rob says:

    Churchill and Vigano, hmmm…? Interesting imagery.

    I would point out, though, that Churchill wouldn’t be in hiding.

  20. Suburbanbanshee says:

    Charivari Rob, apparently you are unfamiliar with Churchill’s adventures behind Boer lines, when he spent his whole time running and hiding. War is waged by correct analysis of the situation, and prompt fitting response.

    Vigano is retired. He can make statements, and then retreat to the anonymity of being just another old geezer. Why not? It is a brilliant asymmetrical attack. Let his enemies do the hard work; he can relax and pray.

Comments are closed.