Talk:Carlo Maria Viganò

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A conservative

Is Vigano from the church's conservative wing? Contaldo80 (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very much so.
talk) 04:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I've added some material from America (a liberal Catholic magazine) that gives reasons that the letter may seem credible and reasons it may not seem credible. The latter includes claims that Viganò has an axe to grind. It doesn't directly address the conservative/liberal divide, but that issue is somewhat implied. In any event, it's possible that over the next few days new facts may come to light. Viganò named so many folks in this letter that it's hard to believe that every single one will remain silent, or that every single one will act in a purely ideological manner. Or so it seems to me. — Lawrence King (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's always better to document rather than worry about characterizations like "conservative". Don't know why I answered that query above. Maybe just because I was surprised the question was asked.
talk) 23:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not a fan of such labels, but in this case someone is going to add them, so I'm hoping to make sure they as close to accurate as possible. America tends to be on the liberal theological side, but that's within the Catholic spectrum -- most of the theologians that are called "liberal" in academic Catholic circles would be called "centrist" in academic Protestant circles; politically they are mostly pro-life Democratic. User:Effeietsanders added "neoconservative" for First Things, which was certainly correct fifteen years ago, but since R.R. Reno became editor they have included traditionalist positions as well. If I had my way, these descriptions wouldn't be used when establishing a fact (if a source's bias makes its facts dubious, it's not a
WP:RS
at all; if its facts are reliable, then its bias is irrelevant). But I'm fine with having these labels in the section that describes how different groups assess the Vigano letter.
On a semi-related topic, I think that 80% of the commentariat have missed the fact that Vigano's letter is not about the abuse of minors; it's about allegations of consensual and not-fully-consensual sex between adults, and more importantly, about alleged networks of clerics who work together for certain purposes. But a Wikipedia article has to report what the press says (within due limits), not offer
WP:OR rebuttals of the press' comments. — Lawrence King (talk) 04:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Nienstedt

I'm doing some work on the Nienstedt article at present. I'm afraid what this article says is incorrect. There was an investigation into a single incident (a boy touched on his buttocks following a confirmation ceremony) -- that's the investigation that ended with the police clearing Nienstedt. Vigano had absolutely nothing at all to do with it.

There were two other lengthy investigations, one into Nienstedt's personal conduct and the other into how he dealt with complaints about abuse by other clerics. Vigano only plays a role in the first. Namely:

In January 2014, after charges about Nienstedt's behavior with adult men reached the archdiocese, Nienstedt ordered an investigation conducted by a local law firm at his own request. Nothing criminal was alleged and the police were not involved. This is conducted by a law firm (Greene Espel) at the request of the Archdiocese. And it's initially totally secret. The fact that this was under way only became public in July 2014, when it was reported that the law firm had unearthed some serious allegations and collected affidavits from several of those involved.

In 2015, just after Nienstedt resigned, the public learned that Nienstedt had tried to squelch the investigation--yes, the investigation he initiated--in April 2014 and that two Auxiliary Bishops (Lee Piche and Andrew Cozzens) went to Vigano, hoping for his support in getting Neinstedt to resign. Instead the investigation was shut down. In 2015 the public learned of a July 2014 memo from the Rev. Daniel Griffith, who at the time was in charge of the archdiocese's department focused on protecting children, that accused Vigano of ordering the investigation to end abruptly, without following up on all the leads investigators had uncovered. Griffith also alleged that Vigano ordered top church officials to destroy a letter they wrote him in which they objected to his decision to shut down the investigation. The Ramsey County Attorney's Office said that prosecutors had asked for the law firm's report, but the archdiocese declined, citing attorney-client privilege.

I'm not sure I've pulled together everything from my notes, but here are some sources:

This is now addressed very oddly in just two sentences in John Clayton Nienstedt, beginning "In July 2014, it was announced that Nienstedt was under a non-criminal investigation by his diocese for 'sexual misconduct with men.'", followed by his quoted denial. The story has yet to be told.

I know that's a lot to take in, and the Nienstedt entry is not in very good shape when it comes to all the charges that were swirling, but Vigano's involvement had nothing to do with the police investigation. He's accused of shutting down an Archdiocesan-sponsored investigation that was turning up multiple allegations against Nienstedt. And when it comes to that letter, ordering the destruction of evidence. Hope that helps. I'll try to get Nienstedt into better shape.

talk) 23:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks for doing this. If you are willing to fix the Nienstedt article, and then correct/improve the references to Nienstedt in the Vigano article, that would be awesome. — Lawrence King (talk) 03:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Here's one more source: https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/08/27/archbishop-vigano-responds-to-criticisms-of-handling-of-2014-nienstedt-investigation/ — Lawrence King (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to the actual document quoted in the Catholic World Report article: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4788059-Nienstedt-English-Final.html regarding Vigano's denials of the allegations against him regarding the Nienstedt investigation.Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Cozzens Letter

The text in the article states "Cozzens also responded with a statement defending Griffith and stating that Viganò did in fact order him and Piché to end the investigation" with a supporting footnote. If you follow the footnote to Bp. Cozzens' letter the following can be read: "When affidavits containing serious allegations of misconduct by Archbishop Nienstedt with adults were brought forward, Bishop Piché and I tried our best to bring them to the attention of people who might have authority to act and guide the investigation. This included the then nuncio Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò. 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". This in fact corroborates Abp. Vigano's account of the incident. Will the SME please revise this account? Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

On the lighter side, is there an authoritative source for how the name Viganò is pronounced? I've heard it said with the stress on the final syllable, but I have no idea if that's correct. — Lawrence King (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even worse, I've heard it pronounced a couple of different ways (VEE-guh-no, vigga-NO) by the same person in the same broadcast or podcast. Maybe someone can find an audio clip or video of Viganò saying his own name. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)T @ 17:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you have the accent mark there to show you where the stress is! 82.36.70.45 (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal as nuncio

Vigano reached retirement age In January 2016 and was replaced in May 2016. Hardly unusual for a bishop.Patapsco913 (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Accepting a resignation from an archbishop a few months after he turns 75 is absolutely standard. I will remove the statement that attributes his departure as nuncio to Rome's displeasure over the KD affair. If anything, IMHO, he was kept on a bit so as to disconnect his departure from the KD affair. It was routine and was handled in a way that ensured it looked routine. Anything else would have raised at least a minor ruckus, and that was easy to avoid.
talk) 22:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
It's more frequent for resignations not to be accepted until a year or more after they were submitted. Just look at Wuerl. Display name 99 (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes for cardinals; no for bishops and especially not for bishops in demanding positions like nuncios to the larger countries.Patapsco913 (talk) 04:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Vigano Affair

This has received a massive amount of coverage globally. Perhaps it is time to split that off into its own article. Thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At some point that might be necessary. But my worry is that if it were done now, we'd just create two copies of our current edit wars. Consider the following topics: (1) Was Vigano removed as nuncio because of the Kim Davis incident and/or Pope Francis' displeasure with him? (2) Did Vigano lie with regard to his brother Lorenzo? (3) What was Vigano's role in the Nienstedt investigation? (4) Is Vigano a "conservative", seen as an ally of Pope Benedict and a foe of Pope Francis? If we split the article these topics would fit best in the Carlo Maria Viganò article, not in the Viganò's Letter and its Fallout article. But Wikipedia editors would promptly introduce this information into the latter as well, on the grounds that you can't assess the letter without this background information. So we'd end up with two copies of these topics, and they'd quickly get out of sync and double our work. So I lean to not doing this yet, although I can see arguments on both sides. — Lawrence King (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with LK's response. Maybe once things die down (however long that takes) we can take another look. The same goes if there's some major new development, like a resignation, that can be directly traced to this. But overall I'm leaning against it because Vigano's personal history and conservative views factor so heavily into the discussion. Display name 99 (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I think we are edging closer to the day that the letter gets a separate article. Before that happens, maybe we should have a brief discussion about what that article would look like.
My tentative proposal is that the Carlo Maria Viganò page would contain all his biographical information, while the new article would contain everything related to the letter -- including responses to the letter. That would put everything in a central location, avoiding long coverage on the individual pages of Ouellet, Pope Francis, and anyone else who replies in the future.
In particular, this means that the whole Vigano-and-Nienstedt saga and the whole Kim Davis saga would remain on his page. The reason I think this is the right division is that neither of these sagas are mentioned in Vigano's letters, the Pope's brief reply, or Ouellet's reply. Many commentators have brought up the Davis and Nienstedt sagas as evidence of Vigano's character and credibility, and this fact should be mentioned in the letter's article. But that could be handled by saying "John Doe stated that he did not believe Vigano's claims, because
Vigano had arranged for the pope to meet Kim Davis
" -- and people can follow the link if they want to read about this saga on Vigano's own page.
Does this sound like a good plan? — Lawrence King (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

McCarrick Even Did A Mass When Wuerl was made a Cardinal in 2010

This is a interesting article.[1]2601:447:4101:41F9:529:DCBA:F533:B7FA (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2018

change though Viganò later claimed was he not present to though Viganò later explained that was he not present as he got his information to the 2 Bishops who were at the meeting

Reason: [To use the word 'claimed' here is disingenuous, as Fr Griffith was 'not' present at this meeting, nor has he ever claimed to have been - it was only Viganò and Bishops Piche and Cozzens who were present; this is part of the record]


Change Viganò alleged that the decision was misinterpreted by Griffith to Viganò stated that the decision was misinterpreted by Piché or Cozzens, who then related their erroneous recollections to Griffith

Reason: [To say Griffith misinterpreted the decision is to imply that he was present, which was not true]


Change Griffith responded to Viganò's allegations and defended his memo. to Griffith responded to Viganò's allegations and defended his memo's presentation of Piche and Cozzens' original interpretations.

Reason: [As noted above, this is to clarify that he was basing this off other sources]


Change Cozzens also responded with a statement defending Griffith and stating that Viganò did in fact order him and Piché to end the investigation. to Cozzens also responded with a statement stating that he "believe[d] [Griffith] acted in good faith and with sincerity and integrity." But, he notes that he, and Piché, believed that they were "being told by the nuncio to close the investigation". However, Cozzens relates, "the nuncio [Viganò] clarified that we should focus the investigation and complete it, we did so." Therefore, Cozzens who was present at the meeting and subsequent meetings, defends Viganò's account.

Reason: [This is a patently false entry, as can be quickly seen by reading the document in this Wikipedia reference. He does the opposite of what the Wikipedia contributor claims. I have inserted quotes from the link reference at the end of the sentence.]


Please update these changes to the original false sentences (which I would go as far as calling malicious) as they are very damning against the character of the archbishop McCarthy1963 (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. In addition, you should use a template for each one of these edits, not putting them all together. Thinker78 (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It Was Boniface Ramsey Who Informed Montalvo First

Vigano is further called into question, as it has been revealed through a 2006 letter that Ramsey had informed the Vatican nuncio about McCarrick in November 2000.[2]2601:447:4101:41F9:B82F:6A50:A275:B579 (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that confirms Vigano's claim that the Vatican was aware of charges against McCarrick. Vigano never claimed he was the first to inform the Vatican about these charges. He merely claimed that Pope Benedict and Pope Francis were aware of the charges. And Ramsey's story confirms that fact. As it stands, I think it's clear that some claims in Vigano's letter are true, some are false, and some are still undetermined. — Lawrence King (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it confirms that Vigano was misleading people and lacks credibility. He said Montalvo made the complaint and did not mention Ramsey.2601:447:4101:41F9:2505:370D:3DBA:DC44 (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the source which I provided, Leonardo Sandri's own words in the letter were “I ask with particular reference to the serious matters involving some of the students of the Immaculate Conception Seminary, which in November 2000 you were good enough to bring confidentially to the attention of the then Apostolic Nuncio in the United States, the late Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo.” Vigano also did mention Sandri either.2601:447:4101:41F9:2505:370D:3DBA:DC44 (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LifeSiteNews

I see this

WP:BLPREMOVE. 2600:8800:1880:1084:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 08:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

LifeSiteNews and Church Militant were the ones responsible for publishing the Vigano letter and subsequent documentation that he provided. Both of these sources are heavily biased and best to be cautious of but we don't really have any choice here seeing that so much of the Vigano affair can ultimately be traced back to them. Display name 99 (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Every source is biased, but we don't use Breitbart or InfoWars and I see no reason to admit assertions that simply cannot be corroborated by something reliable. This is like saying "well, they are the only ones that prove 9/11 was an inside job, so we don't have any choice!" 2600:8800:1880:1084:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We're not confirming Vigano's allegations. We're reporting on them, just as numerous reliable sources are doing. Hence, I don't see how that analogy works. Display name 99 (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So use the reliable sources and not the ones known for fabrications and libel. 2600:8800:1880:1084:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We do. I can't find a single instance where we cite LSN in the Vigano section. We cite them in the nuncio section simply because they're the ones he provided the documentation to in an attempt to show that he didn't order an end to the investigation. By the way, accusing them of fabrication and libel is way over the top and suggests that you have some kind of personal vendetta against them. None of that is needed here. Display name 99 (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snopes describes it as "a known purveyor of misleading information", and carries three articles debunking LifeSiteNews. KGOV has an article about their fabrication from 2007. A defamation lawsuit provided for them the ideal fundraising opportunity. So... thanks for the personal judgement, but I'd appreciate it if you focused more on the content here. 2600:8800:1880:1084:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've already stated that LSN is not the best source for us to use on Wikipedia. I already revealed to you that its use on this page was very limited, something you did not try to contest. Plenty of news sources publish misleading information from time to time, and it is inappropriate to try to ban us from using the website at all. As it stands, it used very sparingly and none of the claims that its writers advance are confirmed. They are simply reported on for the reader to decide. Your next two links are totally worthless. KGOV doesn't seem any more reliable than LifeSite News (maybe even less so). Being sued and asking for money doesn't make a source unreliable. Display name 99 (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DN99. If this page were using data from LifeSiteNews to establish controversial claims as facts, that would be a problem. But biographies of living persons routinely cite statements by the person himself/herself, and that's the very essence of bias. The Richard Nixon page quote Nixon himself as saying "I am not a crook." Should this be deleted? Every person is biased in their own case, without exception -- even you and me and DN99. But the important thing is that the Richard Nixon page does not say "Nixon was not a crook" (which would be a misuse of a source) -- it says "Nixon said 'I am not a crook'," which is true. In the same way, the Vigano article is right to document Vigano's own claims about himself, even when he chose to publish then on LifeSite News. — Lawrence King (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP, Vigano's defense of himself against accusations of wrongdoing should be included in the article, the venue through which he chose to defend himself being irrelevant. That's different from using claims made by Life Site News itself. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The trouble is - we literally don't even know that those were his words. Because LifeSiteNews is a source that was deprecated for blatant fabrication. We literally can't trust that those were his words.
You really can't form a
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on an article talk page to use a known liar of a source, especially on a BLP. (See also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Levels_of_consensus
.) As such, I've removed it again.
If you want to get consensus that LSN is usable on a BLP for this purpose, I strongly suggest taking the discussion to the proper venue - the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. There's already a discussion of the site in progress, for what it's worth - David Gerard (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
David Gerard, the more mainstream Catholic publication Crux picked up on the interview and documentation that Vigano gave to LSN here. I will re-add Vigano's defense, citing the Crux article instead of LSN, and will not attempt to restore the remaining content sourced to Life Site News. I know that LSN has been accused of misrepresenting facts, but I'm not aware of any accusation against them that they have gone so far as to fabricate entire interviews or to pretend that documents were given to them when they really weren't, which renders any claim that they have fabricated its contact with Vigano without evidence. But to avoid trouble, I'll just cite the Crux article. The fact that Crux, a reliable source, considers the interview genuine should be sufficient to put to rest your concerns about these being his words. Display name 99 (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS, please stick with mainstream sources to avoid insidious bias. And we're not a newspaper so we don't give the last word to the subject in every case - of course the subject usually disputes any criticism, that's a given. Guy (help!) 11:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:BLP. There are two places in the article where the Nienstedt controversy is mentioned. In only one of them is it stated that Vigano denied culpability, and even then it is not mentioned that he provided documentation to defend himself, even though a reliable source acknowledges that he did. This is a BLP violation. Display name 99 (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

We should not be using obviously partisan sources, and especially we should not rely on Catholic sources for commentary around sex abuse claims in the church. Please show me mainstream (i.e. not in-universe religious) sources that cover this? Otherwise it's
WP:UNDUE. Guy (help!) 12:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
JzG, Crux is not "obviously partisan." It is a Catholic source, but is not especially liberal or conservative. There is great difference of opinion within the Catholic Church on how to deal with sexual abuse, and so the fact that it is a Catholic source doesn't necessarily mean that it will tilt one way or the other. And as I said, Crux does not have a reputation for partisanship. Partisan sources are acceptable to use anyway so long as they do not have a reputation for fabrication, and Crux does not. The idea that we should get rid of all information that is cited to a Catholic source means that we'd have to delete most of the article. Look in the References section and you'll see that more than half of the citations are to Catholic sources. Because this is an issue in the Catholic Church, you're more likely to find in-depth coverage of it in Catholic sources. That doesn't mean that the information is undue. If we cannot come to an agreement here, I intend to seek consensus at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Display name 99 (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE. Guy (help!) 19:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
There's quite a few mainstream RSes cited in the article concerning this whole issue. What would the article look like if it were only cited to those? - David Gerard (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
David Gerard, A lot shorter! The article currently contains far too much he-said-she-said and way too much discussion of how right the Pope was to say nothing and how that means it's not a problem at all move along please, source, some Catholics. Guy (help!) 19:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
it's common for the subject to defend himself, but we have to state that in the article or else it's a violation of
WP:RSN may be an idea at this point, for more eyes on the issue - David Gerard (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
JzG, how is it partisan? Saying that it's partisan over and over again without evidence doesn't make it so. What do you mean that religious sources are not acceptable? We have no rule against them, and if something has been covered by multiple religious sources, including a reliable one like Crux, it clearly isn't undue. This seems intended to diminish the importance of religious issues. Let me try an argument by analogy. If an event happens in American politics, do we consider it not notable simply because the BBC or some foreign news agency didn't report on it, even though mainstream American sources like the New York Times or Washington Post did? Or how about disallowing citations to scientific journals in an article about biology simply because mainstream newspapers like NYT or WaPo didn't cover it? That sounds crazy, but it makes about as much sense as what you're telling me. David Gerard, what's WP:RSes? If the subject defends himself against an accusation and we cover the accusation and not the defense, how is that not partial against the person being accused? The article still has part of Vigano's defense; there's a statement sourced to the Associated Press saying that he told them that he didn't obstruct the investigation. My contention is that we should also make note of the fact that he produced documentation in order to try to prove his innocence. Almost everybody after they're accused of something gives the standard "I didn't do it" defense. They don't all provide documentation. Vigano did, which shows that he went beyond the standard defense, meaning that it definitely deserves to be included.
His response to Pope Francis's denial of knowledge of McCarrick also deserves to be included; it is quoted in a mainstream and reliable Catholic news source. Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Display name 99, Seriously? You're asking how a Catholic website is partisan when it comes to discussion of the Catholic church's failure to adequately police child rape by priests? Wow. Guy (help!) 21:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIASED. Display name 99 (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Display name 99, And all of those opinions are fundamentally supportive of the church or individuals within it.Every single one is advancing an agenda of one kind or another.
Now ask yourself this: why would a fundamentalist anti-abortion website that deletes all comments that question its agenda, and which you know will be ignored or discounted by everyone other than hyper-partisans, be the place where you'd publish something you seriously think to be exculpatory?
I am waiting for independent analysis from a source that does not have an obvious dog in the fight. This argument exists because you cannot find any such source. To me, that speaks volumes about its importance. Guy (help!) 10:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
LSN is a conservative catholic website, generally reliable, trusted by many leading catholic figures and leading vaticanists. Senior Vaticanist Philip Pullella just described it in 2019 in a Reuters article as "a conservative Catholic website that often criticizes the pope" and frequently uses it as a source (here or here). New York Times columnist Ross Douthat used it as a source in his last book about Francis and the Catholic Church. I could go on and on. Claims made by people through LSN should of course be included. Thucyd (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
LSN are also such chronic publishers of deliberate falsehoods that they were deprecated as a site usable on Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The RSN discussion is at: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Life_Site_News_(again)-_or_rather_Crux_News - David Gerard (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If Crux does end up being used, one thing I want to point out (I mentioned it on
WP:RSN, but it seems crucial, so I don't want it to be missed) is that the disputed edit contains a line, which seems to be at the crux of the dispute, saying He provided documents to LifeSiteNews to show that he did not order an end to the investigation - presumably previously sourced to more strident language in LifeSiteNews. But if I understand which part of the Crux piece we're relying on for that now, the important part, to me, is Viganò also claimed Jeffrey Lena - an American lawyer working for the Holy See - went to the Congregation for Bishops and found documents “proving that my conduct had been absolutely correct.” (it then says The former nuncio also furnished LifeSite with two letters backing his claim. Lena declined a Crux request for comment, which may be the specific part we're relying on; but it still, overall, is clearly worded to present this as something Viganò merely claimed rather than as definite truth.) I feel that taken as a whole, Crux is treating the claim with skepticism (or at least caution), and we'd need to reflect that caution - the old wording makes it sound like the documents definitely exonerated him, whereas Crux is worded to describe that as just his claim. --Aquillion (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Possible split?

The letters form about half the article, at a quick glance. This seems ripe for a split or merge to

Theodore Edgar McCarrick. It overwhelms the biography, IMO. Guy (help!) 11:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

It may be best to split it, but only into a separate article. The consensus has been that the information is more relevant to Vigano than to McCarrick. Display name 99 (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Display name 99, that makes sense. Guy (help!) 13:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Successors

I see that he has successors since had previous posts. Should the infobox list the successors? Manabimasu (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Condemnation of Fratelli Tutti

Hello, Veverve. In deleting this section, your summary of your edit was “His commentary on the encyclical in anecdotic at best”? I struggle to understand your meaning. Are you saying that what Viganò said was merely an anecdote, and not intended seriously? Please do explain. Moonraker (talk) 03:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonraker: His opinion is anecdotical in the sense that his opinion about this encyclical is not important enough to be noted in the article. Numerous bishops react to numerous encyclicals all the time; it is not noteworthy. Maybe a short summary of his criticism of FT could be featured in a "Criticism of Pope Francis" section which would have all his criticism of the pontificate of Pope Francis. Veverve (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you,
notability policy is about whether a *subject* is notable, we do not have the concept at WP of a non-notable opinion. We might have a discussion about whether this Archbishop’s opinion is important enough to be noted in the Fratelli tutti article, and that might come down to a consensus on the talk page. But it is clearly relevant on a page about Viganò himself, and suppressing it here would be a mistake. Moonraker (talk) 03:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Catholic Family News

Is Catholic Family News believed to be a

WP:NPOV
website which can be cited in the WP aerticles?

I would like to cite an interview published in September 2020 where Archbishop Viganò defined Mgr. Lefebvre “an exemplary confessor of the Faith" whose critique against the Council are “more relevant than ever.” The Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) has kept alive the traditional Old Mass which is the “only” one that perfectly applicates and is respectful of the Deposit of Faith (depositum fidei). He belive to be effective the episcopal consecrations celebrated in 1988 by Mgr. Lefebvre at Econne, Switzerland.Philosopher81sp (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS and would not be usable for statements on Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@Elizium23:, the cited source is not a mere blog, but a blog of a journal having an ISSN codification and a WP article. Why does it stay on WP if it is a non-reliable source, probably going to be blacklisted?
I gave for discounted it was a
WP:reliable source, given that the same article is translated in Italian and in French: unavox, medias-presse.info, radiospada.org/ and by the journalist sor-of-the-faith/ Marco Tosatti
. Hence, there are no doubt it is real and realy coming from Mgr. Viganò.
The first two sources of information are substantially ignore din the articles of en.wikipedia, but there are no reasons to continue in doing the same withour assuming a new direction.
The WP:relevance consists mainly of the theological meaning of the following sentence:

He makes clear that priests should offer the Catholic Rite not merely “to preserve the extraordinary form of the rite, but to testify to adherence to the depositum fidei that finds perfect correspondence only in the Ancient Rite.” The adverb “only” is extremely significant. The Old Mass is not merely an optional choice among two equal forms (new and old). It is the “only” one that perfectly corresponds to the Deposit of Faith (depositum fidei).

I would like at least to cite it in the WP article. Previously, I've cited the sole English version, applicable to the srticle.Philosopher81sp (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
medias-presse.info is not RS (it is roughly the French equivalent of LifeSiteNews), UnaVox does not seem to be either, and Marco Tosatti posts this on his personnal blog. I understand that Vigano uses all the "alternative" Catholic medias to communicate, medias which in turn are used as sources for other "alternative" Catholic medias in other languages; however, all those "alternative" Catholic medias are not considered reliable by WP's standards. Veverve (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
this is not the case to start an edit war, so if there is no
WP:NPOV articles. Alternative media like the cited websites are sometimes the unique way available to communicate with the world outside the Vatican State. This is what results reading the frequency of article related to some personalities like the subject of the article. For what concerns their structure, we are talking about textual or static ordinary news websites without spam , pop-up or other critiacal web objects; if some Wikipedians classify them as "alternative" on the basis of their contents (theory of the complot, Satanist Freemasonry in the Church or something similar) this is a mere subjective and not neutral opinion, and on the basis of the five pillars it shall not anymore condition their usability in the WP articles. Thanks for your reply.Philosopher81sp (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

UNDUE

The sections treating Viganò's post-retirement letters and crusade against whatever, are now completely overshadowing the rest of the article. This is a textbook case of

WP:RS this is barely a blip. Let's cut down the coverage to the bare essentials. Elizium23 (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Infobox title

He is no longer Apostolic Nuncio, so that title is not appropriate to place in the infobox. I don't know about Titular Bishop, but he really holds no other office now. Elizium23 (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Million MAGA Marchers Rally

I have read the commentary regarding LifeSiteNews. However, those comments do not address articles attributed to (in contrast to about) Viganò.

Viganò wrote an article[1] dated November 16, 2020 is which he includes a letter to the MAGA marchers contesting the election of Joe Biden as President of the United States. Therein Viganò supports the baseless notions promoted by Donald Trump that the election was fraudulent and that vote counts were manipulated.

Vigano indulges in a diatribe that includes a number of MAGA talking points most of which are the dishonest stylings of Trump. I am not sure if this is worthy of inclusion given the source in spite of the fact that it allegedly consists of Vigano own words. David Cary Hart (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BLM, riots, George Floyd

Viganò mentions once the "riots" in his "open letter to Trump". This is sufficient indication that he's discussing Black Lives Matter (the organizers of the protests) and George Floyd (the stated issue at stake by BLM in the protests) and therefore by referencing "riots" he's referencing these three entities and it should be made clear in the article. One problem though. This is a

WP:AGF that they contain all the facts that support the article text. We must not analyze things ourselves based on primary sources, only on the secondary ones which analyze for us. Elizium23 (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

@
WP:OR. You will have to find reliable secondary sources which interpret what what Vigano wrote if you want to go beyond what he wrote. Veverve (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@Elizium23: Not sure sure how it is sufficient indication, alternatively "riots" could refer to the riots in and around Vatican City, Italy and Europe. These indicatiosn skew towards being assumptions. For content to remain on Wikipedia, the content must be free of copyright restrictions and contentious material about living people. The open letter, written by the living man Vigano himself is available for reference and provided as a reference, so citing another source for interpretation of the letter of this living person seems problematic,

162.198.97.65 (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

au contraire if we have secondary sources we shouldn't even be using the letter at all, per
WP:BLPPRIMARY. I'll read the secondaries and see what I can find. Elizium23 (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The Washington Post (WaPo) directly connects Viganò's reference to "riots" to Black Lives Matter. Thererfore it stays in the article as a
WP:V fact. Secondly, if we are to wikilink the BLM "riots" they are named George Floyd protests
so we can't get around naming Floyd, either.
Unless we want to decide this crap is all
WP:UNDUE and tear it out of the article as scurrilious gossip, replacing it with 2-3 sentences, one for each "manifesto". Elizium23 (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. ^ "Archbishop Viganò: Million MAGA Marchers are right to oppose Dem's 'fraud…manipulation of votes'". LifeSiteNews. Retrieved 17 November 2020.

What to do with the new book of his statements?

A new book containing all of Vigano's public statements from August 2018 to January 2021 has been released. Are we to mention it in some way in the article? Veverve (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Santo Marcianò and COVID-19

From what I read on this RS, Viganò has sent a letter to the Italian military and police which made it:Santo Marcianò, head of the chaplaincy of Italy, release a statement condemning Viganò's letter. Do you think this should be included in the article? If so, how and where? Veverve (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also reported in this RS. Veverve (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UOGCC

According to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church article, "On 14 October 2019, the UOGCC (Ukrainian Greek Orthodox Catholic Church) ...announced they had elected Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, as their Pope.[55][56] Manannan67 (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"the case of a very well-known American bishop, who was nuncio"

The pope stated in a recent interview (translation source): "For example, the case of a very well-known American bishop, who was nuncio. It is not known whether this man is Catholic or not, he is on the border. These resistances are badly handled. In the Church, from the beginning, there has been resistance" (original interview).

Does any source make the link with this statement and Vigano? Veverve (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carlo_Maria_Viganò&oldid=1210570746"