Cardinal Wuerl stands accused of knowing of McCarrick’s activity “because he is a bishop”.
Now you want to move the goal post to “Well he must have heard gossip”.
Perhaps that occurred and perhaps it didn’t, and even for the moment assuming it did, I know of nowhere along the line of Wuerl’s postings as bishop that he had any contact with either McCarrick or McCarrick’s accusers.
And further, you presume he gossips. Why? Because “everybody does it”?
Even for the moment assuming he had heard some gossip, there is a serious question of what he might be called to do. You would have him carry that gossip to someone else? He was in no position and had no authority to research the matter. I have seen one allegation that he may have noted the matter to Rome (and there is controversy over that too), and if so, he did the proper thing and it would then be up to Rome to decide what to do about one bishop saying “I heard…” about another bishop.
Anyone who thinks that there hasn’t been in-fighting among bishops needs to go read Acts, as Peter and Paul got into it; and it is beyond naive to think that it has not continued down to today.
I am all for cleaning up the crisis we have had for decades upon decades (and I suspect it has been a matter within the Church to one degree or another for the better part of 2,000 years). I am not trying to justify anything or anyone; but the hysterical frenzy of “blood in the water” is also out of control. And a significant part of that is being driven by a liberal secular press which has no love whatever for the Catholic Church.
I understand your frustration, but finding actual evidence is far more difficult than you think, and when people’s reputation is damaged by false accusations, there is no way on earth to repair it. I agree the Church needs to root out what has gone on for all too long and I also agree that the Church needs transparency. It also has a duty to proceed with caution, as noted above. It is one thing for an allegation to be made; it is entirely another to prove an allegation.
And while we are at it, I have heard allegations of at least one other Cardinal - not that the individual ever engaged in any sexual behavior, but that the “purple mafia” had much to do with his placement. And unless someone can come forward with a specific, provable allegation, that matter should remain unspoken.
As to McCarrick, what needs to be done is to determine who all had a hand in him going from bishop to Cardinal, and who, among those who had a hand in it, had knowledge of either settlement. And if they did not have knowledge of the settlements, then the next question is “Why?”. I don’t know the time line of when he was made Cardinal, and how that relates to the time of the settlements, but the questions are right there. I don’t know the history of the accusations and if they were made public prior to settling. If they were handled privately then information may not have been available to those promoting his position as Cardinal.
