Archbishop Viganò Responds to Roberto de Mattei's accusation regarding the use of a 'ghostwriter'

[Stone]

De Mattei Attacks: Viganò Turns the Table Around

Gloria.tv | June 22, 2021


Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò is “astonished” that the famous Catholic historian Roberto de Mattei has deemed it necessary to attack him by claiming that a "ghost writer" is behind Viganò's 2020-2021 publications.

"There is no ghost writer," Viganò insists, "By the grace of God I am still in full possession of my faculties, I am not manipulated by anyone and I am absolutely determined to continue my apostolic mission for the salvation of souls.”

Viganò confirms that "all my writings, statements and interviews are the result of a maturation of convictions of which I proudly claim full authorship,” calling De Mattei's allegations "totally unfounded," “bold" and "fanciful."

He turns the table around by saying that De Mattei's theory must be “the result of some advisor” and was “composed by a grey official regime obedient to the mainstream narrative, and not by the sharp mind and genuine faith of de Mattei I knew.”

[Stone]

Viganò: About some declarations of Professor Roberto de Mattei which recently appeared at ‘Corrispondenza Romana’

'If I have spoken evil, give testimony of the evil; but I have spoken well, why do you strike me?' ~ Jn 18:23

By Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

June 22, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – The article The Viganò Case: The Archbishop and His Double, which appeared yesterday at Corrispondenza Romana in both Italian and English, signed by Professor Roberto de Mattei, has been pointed out to me.

I am unable not to express my amazement at the statements that an illustrious Catholic intellectual, hailed as a champion of Tradition and who has not spared the Hierarchy criticism that is at times severe but always carefully considered and just, felt that he had to make in my regard. In reality, it would have been enough to consult me verbally or by letter in order to dispel his suspicions and feel reassured that all of my writings, declarations, and interviews which I have given are the fruit of a maturation of convictions of which I proudly claim full paternity.

The idea that I have a “double” must be the fruit of some adviser to whom Professor de Mattei has improvidently lent his faith, without realizing that by doing so he has exposed himself to the public refutation of completely unfounded allegations, which also sound, if I may be allowed to say so, not very charitable in my regard. I am therefore taking the opportunity afforded by his article to deny his impudent and fanciful theses, reassuring those who have the goodness to read me and listen to me that there is no ghost writer, and that by the grace of God I still have full possession of my faculties, I am not manipulated by anyone, and I am absolutely determined to continue my apostolic mission for the salvation of souls.

In other times, de Mattei would have been proud to be at my side in the common battle for Catholic truth, for the defense of the immutable Magisterium and of the venerable Traditional Liturgy against the assaults of the Modernists. He would have probably also been at my side in denouncing the pandemic fraud and the intrinsic immorality of experimental vaccines produced with fetal material derived from abortions.

His recent interventions – published with his own name or under a pseudonym – have demonstrated, not without heartfelt sorrow, that if there is a “double” it must be sought in the recent writings of the Professor; writings that seem to be composed by a dull regime official who is obedient to the mainstream narrative, and not by the sharp mind and genuine faith of the de Mattei I once knew. Quantum mutatus ab illo.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

June 22, 2021

S. Paulini, Episcopi et Confessoris

+++

Viganò case: the archbishop and his double
by Professor Roberto de Mattei

Originally published at Corrispondenza Romana

The pontificate of Pope Francis is heading into the sunset, as many admit by now, but a sunset can be stormy and no one knows how deep a night will follow it before the dawn finally comes up.

Cardinal Marx’s resignation from the archdiocese of Munich is one of the signs of the gathering storm, but there is another threatening cloud, all the more troubling in that it is brought not by the wind of progressivism, but by the wind of what is called traditionalism. The cloud has the shape, if not the identity, of an illustrious prelate: the Most Reverend Carlo Maria Viganò, titular archbishop of Ulpiana and former apostolic nuncio in the United States. So what is happening?

Archbishop Viganò has distinguished himself in service to the Church, always carried out with generosity and a spirit of dedication. After a brilliant diplomatic career, from 2009 to 2011 he was secretary of the Governorate of Vatican City, making many enemies through the decisiveness with which he acted to rehabilitate the finances of the Holy See. In 2011 Benedict XVI appointed him apostolic nuncio in the United States of America. He performed brilliantly in this position until April 12 of 2016, after he had reached the age of 75, when Pope Francis accepted his resignation. As Archbishop Viganò himself revealed on June 23 of 2013, he was received by the new pontiff and with his customary frankness brought him up to speed on the disastrous situation of part of the clergy in the United States, with particular reference to the case of Cardinal McCarrick.

The pope listened to him but did nothing, and on the contrary allowed the situation to get worse. The Bergoglian pontificate reached the acme of its crisis after the promulgation of the Exhortation Amoris Laetitia of March 19 2016. Archbishop Viganò’s growing concern drew him closer to the Catholics who were showing a spirit of filial resistance toward Pope Francis. Finally, on August 22 2018, the former nuncio of the United States published a dramatic testimony in which he brought to light the existence of a network of corruption in the Church, calling out those responsible, starting with the the highest ecclesiastical authorities. Archbishop Viganò’s revelations were never denied, but on the contrary confirmed by the measures that Pope Francis took against Cardinal McCarrick. Fearing for his safety but also for the sake of discretion Archbishop Viganò withdrew to a secret location where he still resides. Other statements followed the courageous first declaration, from the document Scio cui credidi of September 28, 2018, to the long interview with the Washington Post of June 10, 2019. What characterized these statements was that they were rare and circumscribed in their contents. Archbishop Viganò expressed himself firmly, but only on matters of which he had direct knowledge, with simplicity and nobility of language. This was the basis of his credibility.

In 2020, the year of the pandemic, something unexpectedly changed and a new Archbishop Viganò appeared onstage. When we speak of a “new” Archbishop Viganò, we are naturally not referring to his private persona but to his public identity, as appears from the barrage of statements that he began to publish, starting with the May 8, 2020, appeal against the “New World Order.” This appeal did not fail to raise serious doubts in the Catholic world close to him, to the point of driving some of his friends and admirers not to endorse it. The tone of his ever more numerous publications became pompous and sarcastic, and the topics expanded to the fields of theology and liturgy, in which he had always said he had no expertise, stretching even to considerations of geopolitics and the philosophy of history, extraneous to his way of thinking and expressing himself. Two themes dear to the traditionalists, the liturgy and Vatican Council II, became his hobbyhorse, in the context of a philosophy of history dominated by the idea of a “great reset,” which through medical dictatorship and mass vaccination would lead to the extermination of humanity. Pope Francis, generally referred to as “Bergoglio,” would be one of the architects of this plan.

To those who knew him best, or those who had paid close attention to his statements, it was immediately clear that there were discrepancies between Archbishop Viganò’s statements of 2020-2021 and those of 2018-2019. One question keeps growing more insistent: is Archbishop Viganò really the author of the writings of the past year?

At this point a clarification has to be made. Using contributors for one’s own statements does not in itself have anything terrible about it. Popes and heads of state routinely use “ghost writers” who carry out research for them or give literary form to their ideas. Often athletes and performers also turn to journalists when writing their books of impressions or memoirs.

But there are two risks to keep in mind. First of all, someone who signs a text, whether he is the author or not, takes responsibility for it in terms of both the form and the content of the statement, and must be very careful to keep his thought and language from coming across as distorted.

In the second place, someone who acknowledges paternity of a text should give general guidelines so that the writer may act as his arm and not as his mind. It would in fact be dangerous for the “ghost writer” to be the one to determine the line of thought of the text’s signatory. And this can happen when the invisible author overshadows the visible one, on account of greater expertise or power of personality.

An even more dangerous situation would be the creation of such a relationship of dependence that the visible author could no longer do without the invisible one, whose disappearance or desire to push unacceptable content would create for the visible author a dramatic “communication void.”

The question we pose is therefore this: analysis of the language and content of the documents produced by Archbishop Viganò during the years 2020-2021 reveals an author different from that of the years 2018-2019. But if Archbishop Viganò is not the author of his writings, who now is filling in his words, and perhaps even his thoughts?

We would never have opened the case if so many good traditionalists were not presenting as a quasi-magisterium the statements, not of Archbishop Viganò, but of his “double.” A clarification is necessary for the good of the Church and of souls who have in Archbishop Viganò a point of reference, but also for the sake of the prelate who has served the Church so well and could continue to serve it.

P.S. Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has already been informed in private, by several persons, of the existence of this problem, for more than a year now.

[Stone]

Defending Viganò: Two of the archbishop’s editors respond to Professor de Mattei’s accusations

We thought that, by virtue of our work and close collaboration with His Grace, we might be competent to speak for and defend him.


Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò speaks at the Rome Life Forum in May 2018.

June 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews - slightly adapted) – The following text is a composite response from Professor Brian McCall and Dr. Maike Hickson, both of whom are involved in book projects with collections of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò's writings of the last years.

We thought that, by virtue of our work and close collaboration with His Grace, we might be competent to speak for and defend him. We do so in two consecutive texts, written individually. We are both honored to add our Apologiae pro Viganò to those already published by Dr. Taylor Marshall and Robert Moynihan.

The Real Archbishop Viganò

By Brian McCall

Sadly, Professor Roberto De Mattei decided to publish a calumnious attack on Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò[1]. Before addressing this surprising and disappointing attack, I wish to state that I have had great respect for Professor De Mattei. I have highly recommended his book: The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story. I was very much taken by surprise when he came out so forcefully in favor of totalitarian government measures and mandatory vaccines this past year. Yet, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Living in Europe, and especially Italy, this past year must have been devastating. Yet, when I saw this scandalous attack on Archbishop Viganò, I was left speechless. Finally, a bishop of the Church responds to the crisis in the Church the way Traditionalists have urged the hierarchy to respond. Finally, a bishop has his eyes opened to the revolution that De Mattei meticulously documents in his book. Yet, Professor De Mattei hurls insults rather than opening his arms in acceptance to someone who is clearly indebted to his very work.

De Mattei levels three main accusations at the Archbishop: (1) the Archbishop’s public statements from 2020-2021 exhibit “discrepancies” from his statements from 2018—2019 and are essentially not in continuity; (2) the Archbishop’s more recent statements are “pompous” and “sarcastic;” and (3) the Archbishop is not the real author of the statements attributed to him recently and there is some secret alter ego author publishing them under his signature.

As to the first criticism, from someone who has studied the Archbishop’s writings extensively (both for publication through Catholic Family News) and for editing and explanation in the book A Voice in the Wilderness, I find absolutely no discrepancies between the identified time periods. I see a perfectly logical and coherent development of understanding running through the four-year period. As I explain at length in A Voice in the Wilderness, that logical progress goes from seeing a serious problem with corruption (and in particular sodomy and its harboring) in the highest levels of the hierarchy to tracing the root causes of that moral corruption to Vatican II and the New Mass. 

This is frankly the consistent and logical course of development that Traditionalists have been urging and praying for the priests and bishops of the world to follow. Archbishop Viganò avoids falling into the pit we have been criticizing “conservatives” for landing in for years: seeing the moral corruption as an isolated problem not connected to liturgy or doctrine. Rather than denouncing the Archbishop for discrepancies or being inconsistent, we should be congratulating and encouraging him for following the evidence wherever it led, even when it led to denouncing the conservative position and the “hermeneutic of continuity’ he had accepted during his Vatican career.

As to the second charge concerning the tone and manner of his more recent interventions, I am surprised to see them called “pompous.” As I explain in A Voice in the Wilderness, his message these past years has been incredibly humble. His Grace has done what so few clerics are willing to do and which takes humility: admit he was wrong. Even when his critics have blamed him for “criticizing” Pope Benedict XVI or claiming that Benedict “deceived” the whole Church, the Archbishop has been quick to respond and make clear that we were all deceived. He has disputed the ability of the “hermeneutic of continuity” to save us from the crisis, but he has made clear that he believes Pope Benedict offered it with good motives and with a love for the church. He has many times admitted his own fault in not seeing the problems with the Council earlier. Rather than pompously telling others “I told you so,” he has merely decried our mutual suffering at the hands of the great deception.

Yes, some of his expressions and criticisms have been strongly worded. Yes, he has called the Vatican of Pope Francis the New Sanhedrin. Yes, he alleged that there are those in the Vatican, including Francis, who are wittingly or unwittingly advancing the agenda of the “invisible enemy.” A grave crisis calls for strong words. The first step to healing is to admit one has a serious problem. Tiptoeing around a problem with euphemisms when the one suffering refuses to admit there is a crisis is not helpful. I remind readers that the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was often criticized for using strong language to denounce the infiltration and betrayal of the Church. In his famous November declaration he referred to Paul VI’s Vatican as “Neo-Protestant and Neo-Modernist Rome.” In his famous sermon at Lille, he referred to the new rites as “bastard sacraments.” When we are living in self-denial, we sometimes need to be shocked out of it. I admit that some of Archbishop Viganò interventions include some sarcasm. Rather than a fault, I see these instances as strengthening his texts. Some of the things we have witnessed, the veneration of the Pachamama for example, are so outrageous that they deserve sarcasm. Yes, his language has been sometimes powerful, graphic, and sarcastic (although justified) but never pompous. 

I also must note that in my regular personal, direct communication with Archbishop Viganò, I have found him to be kind, gentle, and very understanding. Much like Archbishop Lefebvre, I have noted his strong public statements when necessary are in tandem with his very gentle and supportive personal communication. I find this combination not disconcerting but saintly. I am also aware that Archbishop Viganò has provided caring and paternal spiritual guidance and assistance to many lost souls in this time of crisis. He has shown real compassion to help those who reach out for help.

As to the final and in my opinion most outrageous accusation, I find it extremely disappointing that such an accomplished historian would level such an accusation with no evidence or proof. I have already noted that I believe his public interventions are perfectly consistent with a mind open to the truth and reality who sifts the mountains of evidence of the past five decades that lead one to the Council and its New Mass. Certainly, many of the Archbishop’s interventions have been composed in Italian and translated by different translators over the past few years. I do not dispute that one might be able to point to some minor semantic differences in the English translations but there is nothing of substance that I find inconsistent with a developing understanding of the reality of the past five decades. I find it most bizarre that Professor De Mattei specifically attacks in this criticism the “philosophy of history” in the Archbishop’s writings. In these texts, I discover a philosophy of history that is clearly indebted to Professor De Mattei. Rather than seeing the Second Vatican Council as a collection of abstract texts, His Grace has come to see the Council as an entire historical event, and one that is part of a larger revolution. This is the same philosophy that I read in The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story. Is Professor De Mattei disturbed that Archbishop Viganò has become his pupil of history?

As to this absurd and unfounded accusation that there is some secret behind the scenes author, how does Professor De Mattei explain the fact that many of the interventions of the past year are transcripts of conferences given by Archbishop Viganò personally and recorded in video or audio form (until YouTube deletes them). For example, his text from the Catholic Identity Conference was delivered via video. His speech at the Jericho March in Washington was also preserved in video as was his speech to the Venice Philosophy Festival. Does Professor De Mattei think that there is some Archbishop Viganò impersonator who gave these recorded lectures? The Archbishop himself publicly denied this scurrilous accusation (although I guess De Mattei might claim that was merely his double speaking).

After his first article, Professor De Mattei issued a second missive that purported to present linguistic evidence that there is a double who wrote the recent texts. He argues that since the Archbishop’s texts use the following expressions, which are also used by a blogger writing for Opportune Importune under the pseudonym Baronio, this Baronio must have authored the texts attributed to Viganò: “counter-church,” “conciliar sect,” “innovators,” and “idol” in reference to the Council. De Mattei claims further proof exists in that both Baronio and Viganò claim an equivalence between Vatican II and the New Mass and both claim that the New Mass was composed by progressives and those suspected of Freemasonry. He also adds that both refer to the New Mass as the “reformed rite” or “Montinian Rite.” This flimsy evidence is unworthy of such an eminent historian. The listed phrases are found all throughout Traditionalist literature and conferences for decades. Does de Mattei claim this Baronio is the secret author behind Michael, Davies, Chris Ferrara, and even Archbishop Lefebvre, all of whom have used some or all of these expressions? I have repeatedly claimed a deep equivalence between the Council and the New Mass and have written and spoken on the Freemasonic and Progressives who forged the New Mass.  Am I next to be accused as a puppet of this Baronio?

Further, de Mattei claims that this Baronio is an Italian named Pietro Siffi, someone whom I do not know but who apparently is a controversial figure in Italian traditional circles. His main fingering of Siffi as Baronio/ Viganò II is a defense of Siffi on Baronio’s blog. Then to add insult to injury after using the flimsy vocabulary claims to link Viganò to Baronio and then just asserting that Baronio is Siffi, he intimates that Siffi is a practicing homosexual or at least sympathetic towards such lifestyle. This last intimation defies reason. Archbishop Viganò has been one of the few prelates of our time to unambiguously condemn sodomy and the attempt to temper Catholic doctrine on the intrinsic evil. We are now to believe that the power behind the miter is a homosexual! We are to believe all this on the basis of an anonymous blogger also using terms like “conciliar sect.”

Sadly, this attack on Archbishop Viganò is another example of a criticism often justly lobbed at Traditionalists. Too often some in the Traditionalist movement do not embrace with open arms those who find the truth late. They are often pushed away or mocked. We should rejoice for any Catholic, lay or clerical, who is willing to follow the evidence to its root. We should be tolerant of any rash or overly zealous language they may employ in discussing their newly found knowledge. (Not that I am claiming that the Archbishop has been overly rash or imprudently zealous). Too often we attack rather than welcome brave souls like Viganò.

I for one stand behind Archbishop Viganò. I welcome his contributions to the debate over the crisis in the Church. I read in all his texts, even his strongly worded ones, a true love for the Church and for lost souls. I admire his courage and his humility. To anyone scandalized by the recent attack, I would urge put these accusations aside and read the texts authored by Archbishop Viganò. Decide for yourself if he speaks consistent truth or not. I assure you that I find nothing in his public addresses or his personal correspondence with me that is inconsistent or contradictory. Finally, pray for Archbishop Viganò. His brave stand against the New Mass and the Council will bring persecution, even from unlikely corners. Pray that he receives the grace to persevere to the end.

✠ ✠ ✠

In Defense of Archbishop Viganò

By Dr. Maike Hickson

It has been one of the greatest honors and joys of my work as a journalist and author to have gotten to know Archbishop Viganò personally and through his work. I am also currently working with him on a book dealing with his writings on the Second Vatican Council and the message of Fatima. It is a very rewarding work to collaborate with him in every aspect. Most of all, it is a spiritual endeavor that touches the heart of one's Faith, because one sees a man of the Church who gives his all and his best to Christ's Bride, willing to die for her. Day and night – I sometimes wonder when His Grace ever sleeps – Archbishop Viganò is at the service of mankind. People of all steps of life – from simple to high-ranking – have his attention and prompt assistance.

I can testify for this, since I am honored to have been the channel of many communications from priests and laymen who reach out to me, asking me to pass on a message to Archbishop Viganò. I have seen close up how quickly he responds, whenever he is able to. Promptus ad bonum, prompt unto the good, at every moment of his life. With fatherly kindness and gentleness, he responds to desperate souls, to priests who are under pressure from their superiors; to faithful who seek his advice.

I remember one case where I had asked Archbishop Viganò to pray for someone who was in a difficult situation, for weeks he kept him in his prayers. When finally he was able to reach out to that person, he wrote with such kindness, that the person was touched to tears.

Who is this archbishop who acts like a servant, a true shepherd, and a father?

It is Archbishop Viganò.

Also in our little family, we have been touched so many times by his kindness. When our daughter was sick for a longer time last summer, His Grace sent her sweet pictures and photos with angels and saints. He sometimes gets back to me, asking how someone in my family is now doing, and I had forgotten I had even mentioned it to him.

But also intellectually, Archbishop Viganò is such a blessing. He names things as they are. It seems that God used the McCarrick case to remove His Grace from the Church's hierarchy and structure so that he would be fully free to speak in Catholic language. And He seems to bless him abundantly for his willingness to suffer for the Church and under her. So it makes sense that Viganò is growing deeper and deeper in his understanding of the crisis in the Church and in the world, as well.

My husband, who has followed the Church crisis for 40 years and with much agony, so often rejoices about Archbishop Viganò's writings. “This is definitely his best text so far,” is what he has now said already several times, not knowing that something even better was to come! It is a great consolation to Robert to see that an archbishop of the Church finally speaks those criticisms that he has uttered for many years now and for which he himself had much to suffer. Viganò's kindness toward him means so much.

In our many communications, I have seen how His Grace takes in new information, learns from others, and deepens his thought and takes counsel. I would say that it is his deep humility that makes this intellectual honesty possible.

At the same time – and here I respond directly to the claim of Professor de Mattei that there are two Viganòs – I can testify that what His Grace writes is authentically coming from him. There is no split between his own thoughts as he expresses them in private and his writings for the public. He might take counsel with others – as I have seen it myself –, but this is what every responsible churchman should do.

As to what His Grace is writing about, I can see much farsightedness. I still marvel at how clearly he saw the corona situation, more than a year ago, at a time where my family was still trying to figure out what was going on. Many of his statements have come to be proven right. Just the other day, a family member who works in the medical field told us how many patients she now has that have grave side effects from the corona vaccines. So much suffering, and we have a shepherd who tried to warn us, at a time where the Supreme temporal Shepherd appears to have largely abandoned us.

And truly, he leads us on the path of truth, repentance, reform, trust in God and love of Mary.

And this is why so many priests and faithful love Archbishop Viganò. Whether they agree with everything he says or with most of it, they know that he truly loves them and truly cares for them. He acts like a father to us. As one Catholic told me: “the sheep follow when they hear their shepherd's voice.” Or as a priest told me who witnessed a telephone conversation between His Grace and a nun: “she took to him like a duck to water,” meaning they had an immediate, trustful rapport.

I have seen Archbishop Viganò calling in to give counsel, taking time to listen and to help.

This is the churchman my family and I so cherish.



[1] https://www.corrispondenzaromana.it/the-...is-double/.

[Stone]

A little satire: 

Exclusive Interview: Viganò 2 Speaks 
By Aldo Maria Valli

Dear friends of Duc in altum, after Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò was accused of having a double, I did a series of investigations, and today I am able to share with all of you this exclusive interview. I found Viganò 2, the alter ego of Viganò 1, and here is the conversation that we had.

***

Good morning, so you are Viganò 2…

That’s right.


It’s a pleasure to meet you.

The pleasure is all mine.


May I ask you what kind of connections you have with Viganò 1?

Very good ones.


Can you say something more?

Viganò 1 is a sweet man, and he tends to be, how shall we say it, a bit too tender, while I am somewhat more determined.


I understand. But when do you take the field?

Oh, it depends. Speeches, articles, conferences, books, essays. Whenever Viganò 1 needs me.


It must be hard work…

No, I am happy to do it.


And how did you start collaborating?

Well, when Viganò 1 was nuncio to the United States I slipped under his cassock and went around in his place. Gestures, handshakes. You know, in diplomacy all this has a certain importance.


And then?

Then I began speaking in place of Viganò 1. He would move his mouth, but the words were mine. We reached a good understanding.

Go on.

The same thing would happen when Viganò 1 was in the Vatican. I was always under his cassock. For example, if there were accounts at the Governorate that did not balance of if the numbers were suspicious, I was the one who made the calculations and then I called the managers…


And…

And I took the necessary actions.


And Viganò 1?

Oh, he would say: just let it be, what do you hope to accomplish…But I refused to budge. I am made that way.


And now?

And now, it’s the same. When there is an article to write or a speech to give or an interview to grant, I enter the scene. So to speak, obviously, because I am always behind the scenes and let him be the one who appears.


I understand. And you are always in agreement?

Oh, at times Viganò 1 says to me: “But you are decidedly too Catholic!” But then he lets me do it.


And what is the hardest part of your job?

Well, when Viganò 1 makes a long video, it is not easy to stay under his cassock, sometimes for more than an hour, and speak in sync with him as he moves his mouth. But with good practice…


Listen, don’t you ever want to take the limelight?

No. I am good like this, in the shadows.


And how does Viganò 1 handle it?

Oh, as I was saying, he is very good, always kind. He lets it go. He comes to me and says: “Hey, there’s going to be this speech, or this article, or this book…” And I set to work.


What exactly are the ideas of Viganò 1?

He does not have ideas. He leaves that to me.


So he gives you carte blanche, so to speak?…

A completely clean slate.


And there have never been difficult moments, misunderstandings…

Misunderstandings no, but some technical problems, yes. When Viganò 1 was nuncio in the United States, at the beginning it was not easy. I had to speak in English. And so, underneath his cassock, I also had to translate. But little by little I became very quick at it.


I understand. But tell me, how long has this relationship been going on?

Oh, for many years now. Viganò 1 was still a little boy when one day he invented an imaginary friend. Shortly after that, I entered the scene.


What was Viganò 1 like at that time?

Good, calm. He liked to play at figurines. I recall that his set was full of…doubles.


And, listen, what about the famous meeting with Pope Francis…

The one in 2013?


Exactly.

When Pope Francis asked us about McCarrick?


Exactly.

It was a special moment. Since he doesn’t have ideas, Viganò 1 didn’t know what to think. I was the one who explained it to him that the pope was behaving strangely.


So you were there.

Of course I was, like I always am, under his cassock. I listened to the pope and I said to Viganò 1: “Be careful, there’s something fishy about this.”


And what did Viganò 1 think?

As I said, he is a good man. But I was suspicious, so I took the initiative, and that is how the famous Memorandum was born.


Written by…

By me, obviously.


And what are your relations like with other bishops, with the cardinals?…

If it was just Viganò 1, things would be great. He lets things go, allows things to be said. I am always the one who puts him on alert: “Look at how that one is not telling it right; look at how there is apostasy there…”


And then?

And then he says to me: “Listen, I don’t have any ideas. You take care of it.” And so I do.


But do you mean then that even when we collaborated for the book “Nell’ora della prova” it was actually you, Viganò 2, who was writing? …

That’s right.


Well, my compliments! I never noticed anything!

That’s the goal: that no one notices anything.


And what are your plans together now?

In reality, we live a bit day-by-day. Of course, in this heat…


What are you trying to say?

I am saying: with this heat, being under Viganò 1’s cassock isn’t always easy, but it’s my mission, and I want to carry it out in the best possible way.


You do it honorably.

Thank you.


But don’t you both ever get to take a break?

Yes, we like to watch some good films together.


And what are your favorites?

Multiplicity, with Michael Keaton.


And your favorite book?

The Double, by Dostoyevsky. But also The Secret Sharer by Joseph Conrad, The Dark Half by Stephen King, and The Double by José Saramago. And naturally…


Naturally?…

One, No One, and A Hundred Thousand by Luigi Pirandello.


Interesting. Would you like to say something in conclusion?

I would like to say that we, Viganò 1 and Viganò 2, are only one thing, so no one may think of dividing us.


Very well. Thank you again. Give my greetings to Viganò 1. In fact, may I ask where he is and what he is doing?

Oh, he goes for walks.


He goes for walks?

Yes, he likes to walk. He says: “It helps me not to think too much.”  Which does him good, I have to say.


At any rate, you are there to think for him …

That’s right.


Well, it’s a remarkable level of identification…

I am glad to hear you say that. But now, excuse me, I have to leave you. I have to write a rather demanding article in the name of and on behalf of Viganò 1. And then we have an experiment in progress…


Really? What sort of experiment?

Bilocation.


Incredible! And how is it going?

We are working on it, but I can’t say more.


Thank you again for this interview. I would have to say that … it’s worth double!

Thank you as well.

_________________

In the photo, Viganò 2, cleverly disguised as Viganò 1.

[Stone]

A Book on “vaccines” and the Attacks on Viganò: Is a Link Possible?

Pubblicato da Marco Tosatti- slightly adapted | 24 Giugno 2021

Dear readers of Stilum Curiae, as you will recall, a few days ago we spoke about the imminent publication of a book about the “vaccines”, Covid, and abortion: “Mors Tua, Vita Mea.” It is a book that addresses the problem from various points of view. There are fifteen essays by various people. The book was edited by Professor Massimo Viglione and the Introduction was written by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò. It also contains a contribution from Bishop Athanasius Schneider as well as reflections by prelates, philosophers, doctors, jurists, historians, and pro-life activists. Although they are addressing a specific topic, the authors enlarge their horizons to the socio-political sphere that characterizes the present system, which has been created through Covid and mass vaccination.

Certainly it is a work that highlights the dishonest and socially and morally negative aspects of the mass experimentation that is currently underway. This is something that neither Big Pharma, Big Tech, nor Big Finance will like, all of whom are deeply connected to this operation. It may be coincidental, but in the days immediately following the announcement of this book, a campaign has been launched that seeks to discredit one of the principal protagonists of this battle in the search for truth, Archbishop Viganò. Surely this is just a coincidence, no? One would need to be very malicious to suspect that there is some sort of connection between the two events; even if only the blind (or those who wish to be so) can fail to see how the arms of Big Pharma and its associates have long, dripping interests in the world of politics, health, and information. Here below you will find a very short excerpt – just a few sentences – from the book’s Introduction, written by Archbishop Viganò. Enjoy your reading.

-Marco Tosatti

§§§

The barbarism in which our society finds itself is now evident: its values have been gradually erased as hateful vestiges of an extinct world, to the advantage of the delusions of globalist ideology, which shows itself to be ever more anti-human, anti-religious, and antichristic. The most antithetical principle of this infernal barbarism with respect to Christian civilization is infanticide, the human sacrifice of innocent victims offered to Satan; and despite the horror of seeing it brazenly admitted, we cannot be surprised if abortion is proposed by the Satanists as a true and proper religious rite, to which protection must be given in the name of freedom of worship. The ancient pagan rituals – omnes dii gentium demonia, says the Psalm – live again today in the sacrificial offering that unfortunate mothers believe can be claimed as a right.

….
The gene serum that is called a vaccine, as scientists and specialists have very well demonstrated and as its producers themselves admit, does not guarantee immunity; it does not rule out serious short-term and long-term side effects; it is not effective against certain variants of Covid; it does not eliminate the need for masks and social distancing; in the majority of cases the number of positive tests increases, and so media terrorism and the tightening of containment measures also increases. Proposed as a panacea, the so-called “vaccine” has turned out only to be the source of enormous, scandalous profits for Big Pharma and, at the same time, a pretext to impose health passports and other systems for controlling the masses and limiting natural liberties.

….
The issue of the presence of aborted tissue in vaccines had been discredited decades ago as simply ranting by conspiracy theorists and fundamentalists: but today it is candidly admitted that the profits of pharmaceutical houses (and others) legitimizes the killing of the innocents. […] And while it is planned to vaccinate the entire human race by inoculating them with the infernal sacrament, there are Catholic intellectuals who are considered to be “conservatives” who, in order not to lose the side-seat that has been granted to them with condescension [by those who are masters of the world], have reached the point of making themselves champions of science just at the moment that science has transformed itself into witchcraft. They act no differently when, in the face of the Conciliar Revolution, they seek to guarantee themselves a place of visibility by attacking Catholic traditionalists more than modernist heretics. Their contribution to the cause ends up by being counter-productive, while the workers of iniquity enjoy the spectacle of seeing the already weak and quarrelsome confederation of those who are good divided into factions.