As for their silence on the events that took place during the Conclave, I see here as well a certain formally legalistic mentality prevailing over the urgent need to put an end to the subversive coup d’état of the deep church. Their main concern is to not undermine the observance of norms that are valid in times of relative normality, so that it cannot be said that they have violated human precepts, while with their respect for procedures they find themselves endorsing the violation of divine precepts carried out by none other than the leaders of the Catholic hierarchy.
I find it incomprehensible that a member of the College of Cardinals can confide to friends that he has witnessed facts that render the election of Jorge Mario null and void, and at the same time he does not want to denounce them publicly so as not to break the Pontifical secret: the secret that he has already broken by talking about it with those who can do nothing, which forces His Eminence into silence before the Church, whose Pastors could perhaps settle the question. But here we are not talking about the Seal of Confession, but rather about matters that have reason to be reserved until this is to the detriment of the institution that brought them into force; otherwise we find ourselves like the Pharisees of the Gospel, who asked Our Lord if it was lawful to pull a donkey out of the well on the Sabbath day.
…
what credibility can the authority of the Shepherds have when it first establishes a universal norm, then prohibits it, then restores it, and then finally de facto suppresses the same rite?
CFN INTERVIEWS VIGANÒ: Francis, Trump, Ukraine, Child Trafficking, and More