Disconnected thoughts on the Vigano letter to follow.
The best reason to doubt its contents is right here: Whatever supposed sanctions were placed on Cardinal McCarrick by Benedict XVI, they did not prevent him from giving homilies in Saint Patrick's Cathedral:
A much weaker reason to doubt its contents is that Vigano is a conservative who lost internal Vatican battles and strongly dislikes Francis and writes in a shrill and sweeping style. That's just the profile of the kind of person most likely to become a whistleblower.
The portrait of the Benedict papacy as sabotaged constantly by Bertone is self-serving because Vigano and Bertone were enemies. It also fits completely with known facts.
The idea that Benedict would put McCarrick on a kind of "double-secret probation" version of suspension manages to be at once implausible and plausible.
Is there a defense of Francis compatible w/Vigano basically telling the truth? I suppose it might be this: @pontifex was friends w/McCarrick, assumed some allegations were calumnies, didn't know about the abuse of minors, assumed the cardinal had just had a couple gay affairs.
Just how much of a defense that would be I leave for the reader to decide.
Vigano claims there is ample documentation; @EdwardPentin says that people in Benedict's circle are confirming part of the story. The task for the press is to pursue that possible confirmation.
I can't really imagine Francis resigning over this. But that doesn't mean that it will simply blow over, either. Which is another way of saying I have no idea what happens next.
A more general observation: The church's internal civil war is a reality-distorting field where the sex abuse crisis is concerned, and likely to remain so.
Now it's time to go to mass.
