June 22, 2021 (Steven O’Reilly) – Yesterday, Dr. Roberto De Mattei in Corrispondenza Romana authored an article entitled The Viganò Case: The Archbishop and His Double. The article advanced the theory that Archbishop Viganó may not have authored some of the recent texts published under his name. That is, Dr. Mattei suggests the possibility that perhaps some of these articles may been ghost written by one or more others, and Viganó’s name was only affixed to the documents by Viganó.
The reader can see the original article above for Dr. De Mattei’s case. De Mattei in the end concludes his article saying:
“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. (Roberto de Mattei)
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.”
Now, I have great respect for Dr. De Mattei, and I even reviewed his book on “Filial Resistance to the Pope” (see Dr. Mattei and “Filial Resistance to the Pope”). However, I was greatly disappointed that Dr. De Mattei aired his Viganó theory in public when it is based on such questionable evidence. If De Mattei or others have disagreements with what Archbishop Viganó says in his letters and articles, that is perfectly fine. But then state the basis of your disagreement, and then provide your counterarguments, etc. Instead, Archbishop Viganó’s authorship and credibility have been unnecessarily called into question on flimsy grounds.
Now, quickly comes the word that Archbishop Viganó denies Dr. De Mattei’s accusation. Gloria TV reports on Viganó’s response:
“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.”
(Source: Gloria TV. “De Mattei Attacks: Viganò Turns the Table Around“, June 22, 2021.) [NB: Since publishing my article here on the subject, I have since found Archbishop’s Vigano’s full response, dated June 22, on LifeSiteNews. See Abp. Viganò: About some declarations of Professor Roberto de Mattei which recently appeared at ‘Corrispondenza Romana’]
It is not clear what Dr. De Mattei hoped would be gained by voicing his theory in public other than to undermine Viganó’s credibility. But how does that help the ‘resistance’?
So what to make of this?
I don’t know for sure. I have no inside information. Looking in from the outside, De Mattei’s article ultimately reflects a divide within the ‘resistance’ in Rome. That is, some in the ‘resistance’ — perhaps the likes of Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider among them, and with whom Dr. Mattei is very likely in contact — are simply uncomfortable with Archbishop Viganó’s more visible and vocal approach, and the content of his message. Theories of authorship aside, that is fundamentally what this is all about. That the disagreement over content and tone of Viganó’s message had to descend into questions of authorship is unfortunate. Again, if you have a disagreement over content, argue that point.
Once, there was one issue (i.e., Amoris Laetitia and the Dubia) that called for a possible “formal correction” but since then, there are a seeming dozen more (e.g., Abu Dhabi statement, Pachamama, the Scalfari Interviews). While recognizing options are limited, it is unfortunate that after so many years the few ‘resistance’ prelates there seemingly are haven’t by now developed a more coordinated strategy, message, and response to what is going on in the Church and the hierarchy. Then, again, maybe we have been expecting far too much from them all along.
Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. A former intelligence officer, he and his wife, Margaret, live near Atlanta with their family. He has written apologetic articles and is author of Book I of the Pia Fidelis trilogy, The Two Kingdoms. (Follow on twitter at @fidelispia for updates). He asks for your prayers for his intentions. He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com or StevenOReilly@ProtonMail.com (or follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA or on Parler or Gab: @StevenOReilly).