Church: "Credible" Abuse Accusations Against Cardinal McCarrick

  • Thread starter Thread starter PaulfromIowa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dreher has an article in American Conservatve today about a long history of abuse and cover up here. Lots of people in high places knew. Very troubling.
 
What I meant was that seemed to be lenient on certain issues like abortion and homosexual unions. Which are what a lot of liberal minded people these days support. Perhaps he wasn’t a serious Catholic and when a priest isn’t a true serious Catholic, I am sure there is more of a chance to commit heinous crimes if he is inclined to do so.
 
News flash: personal opinions on topics like abortion and gay marriage are no indication of whether someone has committed, or will commit, sexual abuse.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
But it does make me wonder, as pedophilia almost always involves multiple victims, that if there is no more victims over the past few decades, what changed, if he is guilty?
Click to expand...
Maybe nothing changed. Maybe he got more careful. Maybe he got access to church funds to pay off his lovers (as several other bishops have done). And please, let’s stop using the word “pedophilia.” Save that for young children. This guy was into homosexuality–the underage victim was 16, and the other accusations have come from people who were adults at the time. The Church has already paid off two of the other victims. Would they have done that if he were innocent?

The Church needs to stop all the coverups and get rid of these guys ASAP.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely not. This is not any old suspect. This is a cardinal. This is someone who helped draft the rules (!) about child abuse. This is someone who was highly respected and trusted. And keep in mind the Church has already paid off two of his accusers.

When multiple people report incidents over a period of years, the presumption of truth has to be with the accusers. We’ve already established that in the case of men abusing women.
 
Peter abandoned Jesus at his time of need and was still the first vicar of Christ.

Just sayin.
 
Erikaspirit16 said:
The Church has already paid off two of the other victims. Would they have done that if he were innocent?
Click to expand...
I’m not saying that they did so in this case, but yes, a diocese might very well pay a settlement even for a priest who they believed was not guilty of the particular charges alleged. It has happened in the past, because it is sometimes cheaper to pay a settlement than to pursue a defense.

(A former employer of mine often paid settlements in labor disputes, for example, in cases where they believed no wrong had occurred, because the settlement was cheaper than pursuing a defense or an appeal.)
 
From the NCR article:
After hearing about the “very disturbing” from New York, Bishop Checchio said he had Metuchen’s records re-examined, and no accusations of sexual abuse had ever been raised against McCarrick. However, in the past, allegations of “sexual behavior with adults” had been brought forward. Both the Diocese of Metuchen and the Archdiocese of Newark, he said, decades ago received three allegations of “sexual misconduct with adults,” and two of these allegations have resulted in settlements.
Click to expand...
He may or may not be guilty of breaking the law, but there does seem to be a disturbing pattern in his past behavior.
 
pnewton said:
People who stay silent bear no legal responsibility for future crime, and only God can decide if the bear any moral responsibility. But it does make me wonder, as pedophilia almost always involves multiple victims, that if there is no more victims over the past few decades, what changed, if he is guilty?
Click to expand...
Wasn’t this allegation about the abuse of a 16-year-old boy? Such a boy would appear much more like an adult than a child. McCarrick has had decades of rumors following him about the harassment and assault of seminarians, which is actually quite similar to this allegation.
 
I’m befuddled as to why you all dismissed the connection between this and McCarrick’s politics. The fact is that – IF he is guilty of the dozens of “consensual” liaisons with men he is accused of – he has been in a very politically fraught position. There would be plenty of gay men (inside and outside the Church) who would know about this, by direct knowledge or by hearing it through the grapevine. Many of these individuals would be very much offended if McCarrick made a strong statement against gay marriage, or any such thing; they would likely ‘out’ him. Thus, his ability to teach would be compromised by his bad behavior. This is simply the way the world works.
 
Last edited:
I didn’t dismiss it, I simply chose not to add to the pile. These threads always end up with half the people wanting to find some reason to excuse the clergyman (the victims took too long to report, they were practically adults, it’s all a bunch of rumor and innuendo, etc) and the other half wanting to break out the torches and pitchforks. It chills discussion.

The WaPo article I posted noted that “social justice” types in DC will be affected by this because the Cardinal was a big proponent for their side.

Cardinal McCarrick may well be a combination of good man and bad sinner. Like many leaders on both the liberal and conservative sides. We should pray for him and everyone involved.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
Cardinal McCarrick may well be a combination of good man and bad sinner.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. But if the allegations are true, the man took seminarians whose futures were completely in his power and manipulated them, and assaulted them. It’s hard to see a “good man” in that. It’s easy to see a version of Harvey Weinstein, except that Weinstein at least didn’t make his victims question their faith.

That’s not to say he couldn’t repent – of course he can! We all can, and must.
 
Last edited:
Prodigal_Son said:
the man took seminarians whose futures were completely in his power and manipulated them, and assaulted them. It’s hard to see a “good man” in that.
Click to expand...
It’s hard to see a good man in Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby, but those people have good in them too. God loves them and they did some good things in their lives. Bill Cosby was pretty much considered an awesome guy, good father, great entertainer etc for decades. I remember really enjoying the Fat Albert show as a kid and I still think of it often.

Over the weekend I was reading about Cardinal Law and noticed he had been active in the US Civil Rights movement to the point where he was known for that and received death threats. That reminded me that Fred Phelps who founded Westboro Baptist Church had also been super active in the civil rights movement to the point where he received awards from the NAACP and other groups.

People aren’t all good or all bad, no matter how bad their acts (or the acts of which they are accused without having been found guilty) are. We just find it easier to see them that way.
It’s our own failing when God is calling us to seek the face of God in everybody.
 
Last edited:
Prodigal_Son said:
I’m befuddled as to why you all dismissed the connection between this and McCarrick’s politics.
Click to expand...
For me, I am just oblivious. My vision is too narrow to see such connections sometimes, and sometimes I choose to remain oblivious so as not to obfuscate the legal or moral issues involved. Let’s face it, such connections can sometimes be significant, sometimes not. What you call “excuses” I call data, and what you see as pitch forks, I see as justice. So, I do not know my own motives here so I stick more to the facts and will trust that the Holy See did best.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top