In Reference to Francis's Threats of Canonical Sanctions Against Abp Vigano

I have mentioned my papolator acquaintance on FishEaters before. He's gone from defending Francis to defending the Den of Perverts. Last night, I posted this comment, 'X., I knew you would defend Francis no matter what he said or did, but that you would sink to the depths of depravity by defending perverts, pederasts, homosexual rapists, and their enablers does surprise me.'

He replied, implying that Abp Vigano had sinned gravely by breaking some oath of secrecy he took as a nuncio. Below is a quote from his post and the reply of a man who has studied canon law and moral theology at the post graduate level.

From FishEaters Forum

X Wrote: The “pontifical secret” which binds them is not the confessional seal, nor is it as grave as the conclave seal for the cardinal electors, but it is most serious. After Viganò it will never be the same.

...

The archbishop took an oath of secrecy. He violated that oath. How would you like your priest to run around repeating what he heard in confession because he didn't like what the penitent said?

You say it's not the confessional seal, but then you compare it to the confessional seal ...

A confessor has no right to speak to anyone outside of the confessional not because of an oath or promise, but because he is acting in persona Christi. As a man outside of the box he is supposed to have no knowledge of what is said inside the box. Those secrets are committed to Christ, not him, so he has no right to reveal them. In short an Archbishop Viganò hearing a confession gains that knowledge as a substitute for Christ. He has no right to spread that knowledge for any reason, because it is not his knowledge. If he does it not only is a violation of a secret, but a grave injustice and kind of theft.

Even if Viganò took some oath, he learned the matters he shared in the letter, not as Christ's ear and hand, but as Archbishop Viganò. They constituted a committed secret, and thus there is an obligation to keep that secret, not because of some oath, but because of the nature of his job. It would be a grave sin to reveal such secrets were there no a justifiable reason for doing so.

There is. Any moral theologians would tell you that since the public good always must take precedence over the individual good, if the public good demands it, such secrets not only may be to but must be told. If a third party is seriously harmed were the secret not told, there is obligation to tell this secret. Also if the individuals' own spiritual or temporal good depends on that secret it also must be told.

The same moral theologians will also tell you that an oath or vow must have the higher good as its object. One cannot take or keep an oath or vow if the object is an evil thing or become and evil thing. If one takes an vow to eat a tomato a day, but later finds out he's allergic, he must cease the vow, because a vow cannot have as object something harmful or evil. So with an oath. If an oath to secrecy involves concealing something which one is obliged by the moral law to reveal, it ceases to bind.

Viganò is not only in the clear morally here, he was obliged to reveal those matters, and would have sinned had he not.