Actually, cardinal omelet inadvertently supports Archbishop Vigano’s testimony in part, by confirming that mccarrick had been told to live discreetly because of rumors about his lifestyle. He also says asks why bergoglio would take any notice of him at the beginning of his pontificate, since he was retired, and had no responsibilities in the Church at the time, thus confirming that Pope Benedict XVI had put him out to pasture. The cardinal denies formal sanctions, but that’s a strawman at this point. So from omelet’s testimony, we know two things:
1. mccarrick had been told to live a discreet life due to rumors about his immoral lifestyle;
2. mccarrick had been put out to pasture by Benedict.
We also know a third, as it is observable fact:
3. bergoglio reversed the actions of Pope Benedict XVI.
What is not yet in evidence is whether bergoglio knew why Pope Benedict had acted thusly.
If he truly did not know, he was badly served by his cardinals. But I find it difficult to believe, because, as Bishop Lopes says, “Everyone knew.”
Even Benedict has admitted that he put certain restrictions on McCarrick, but couldn’t remember what exactly they were.