So, How Does An Authoritarian Regime Handle Dissent In The 21st Century?

I don't think it's venturing too far from the mainstream to suggest that, even if Pope Francis isn't a down-the-line Perón follower, he seems to take many cues from Latin American strongmen. His original response to Abp Viganò's testimony was to say he would have "not one word" to say about it. But even to respond that one would not respond says something about the limits of his authority. In a totalitarian regime, nothing needs to be announced, and Nacht und Nebel is the outcome.

This reminds me of a perceptive observation about the film Casablanca: in reality, Colonel Strasser would never encounter Victor Laszlo in a nightclub. Strasser would have had Laszlo eliminated before any such thing could take place. This is an indication of the limits a pope faces in a liberal society -- in past times, popes had more flexibility in these matters, and inconvenient figures were strangled. Even if Abp Viganò fears for his safety, he's nevertheless alive while he fears for it. Beria would not have been so feckless.

I notice over the past few days that, even if Francis is still saying nothing, the Vatican is at least trying to appear as if it's moderating its position.

Pope Francis has authorized a “thorough study” of Vatican archives into how a prominent American cardinal advanced through church ranks despite allegations that he slept with seminarians and young priests, the Vatican said Saturday.

Following on this announcement, The Prefect for the Congregation for Bishops issued an open letter to the same Viganò, scolding him "with pontifical permission". Even if Francis is not speaking himself, it seems to me that he's aware that not responding at all hasn't worked. It doesn't work unless you have the resources to stifle the questions before they're asked. The 20th century has established this.

According to the National Catholic Register,

Sources have confirmed to the Register that the Pope is to meet privately on Monday [today] with Cardinal Daniel DiNardo and Archbishop Jose Gomez, president and vice-president of the U.S. bishops’ conference.

This will play out over an extended period, I'm sure. But it looks as though the strategy of "not one word" hasn't worked.

UPDATE: There's a very similar take at The Catholic Thing:

Two statements came out from the Vatican over the weekend, basically during the pause in the Synod for the Sunday observances. Both dealt with the McCarrick case, and were partly a reaction to the constant presence of that case and – indirectly – other abuse cases in synodal conversations about the Church and young people.

. . . The Holy See is suffering under a severe trust deficit at the moment, partly deserved, partly not. But it exists and must be dealt with, lest it become even worse. We’ve just seen sharp criticism of the Vatican-China agreement by many observers – so sharp that Cardinal Zen has called on Cardinal Parolin, the Vatican Secretary of State (and the person responsible for the details of the agreement), to resign for his betrayal of the underground Church in China.

So in a short period, an archbishop (Viganò) has called on a pope (Francis) to resign, and a cardinal (Zen) has called on another cardinal (Parolin) to resign. There’s been nothing like this in modern times.