Letter confirms Vatican officials knew of McCarrick allegations in 2000

  • Thread starter Thread starter AZ42
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
commenter said:
True. And we can’t assume a Pope is aware of everything that every employee in the Vatican knows.
Click to expand...
No, and what I really don’t understand is that allegations being made are all about old ‘informal sanctions’ that we know were not imposed by Pope Benedict. It is under Pope Francis’s papacy that McCarrick has been removed from ministry and has had to resign his red hat.

I very much like Pope Benedict - I very much like his quiet thoughtful style. And I think he did really try to start to address the abuse scandal. But the knowledge people are talking about was under Benedict’s watch and he did not impose any meaningful sanctions. Under Francis’s watch McCarrick has been formally sanctioned.

It all seems very odd to me. I’m not in the US, and as far as I can tell this all seems to be rooted in a big ‘dust-up’ within the US Church with infighting between the more conservative and the more liberal wings. And Francis is largely staying out of it (for better or worse for him and everyone else).

But this too shall pass. All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.
 
Last edited:
Michael96 said:
I very much like Pope Benedict - I very much like his quiet thoughtful style. And I think he did really try to start to address the abuse scandal. But the knowledge people are talking about was under Benedict’s watch and he did not impose any meaningful sanctions. Under Francis’s watch McCarrick has been formally sanctioned.
Click to expand...
Francis’s sanctions came after PUBLIC and substantiated charges of child abuse. That’s hardly a gold star on his shoulder. I’m not denying that Benedict handled this very poorly, but Francis also handled it terribly (at least pending his own explanations or denials).
 
Last edited:
I think very few of us on this forum really understand how the Vatican works, how sanctions are or are not imposed, what information Pope(s) have or don’t have and what Cardinal Macarrik did or did not do. Because of the gravity of the situation, we want answers and we want resolutions. That’s legitimate.

The rest is speculation. Because nobody can be an expert in all things, we HAVE to rely on others to tell us a. what is happening b. the events leading up to any given situation and c. how those events interact with other events such as precedent, policies and procedures and the “unwritten rules” that those within an organization follow. Unfortunately, neither the American media nor the Vatican media are providing that in a clear format that we can understand. I understand the frustration, but I don’t think acting on speculation is going to be helpful.
 
Theo2 said:
In my view, Pope Francis showed mercy. McCarrick was probable very contrite and his sins occurs a long time ago. At least the acts where children were abused. What would Jesus have done? The same thing.
Click to expand...
People can be forgiven, but some sins deserve punishment and have lasting consequences. It is a very dangerous thing to allow any known abuser to be rehabilitated and returned to public life and ministry, under any circumstances, whether it’s the local parish priest or a cardinal. I’m not just pointing the figure at Francis because it’s been a mistake made by the Church as a whole that we’re now paying a price for. Zero tolerance has to mean zero tolerance.
 
Last edited:
therese1998 said:
The rest is speculation. Because nobody can be an expert in all things, we HAVE to rely on others to tell us a. what is happening b. the events leading up to any given situation and c. how those events interact with other events such as precedent, policies and procedures and the “unwritten rules” that those within an organization follow. Unfortunately, neither the American media nor the Vatican media are providing that in a clear format that we can understand.
Click to expand...
We have one clear story from someone who was a very high ranking Vatican insider: Vigano. No one at the Vatican has denied his story. Thus, I wouldn’t call it speculation.
 
Last edited:
Prodigal_Son said:
Francis’s sanctions came after PUBLIC and substantiated charges of child abuse.
Click to expand...
This is hardly a ding on Pope Francis. The public found out about McCarrick when the investigation concluded.

I would expect any legitimate authority to wait until the investigation was concluded to impose sanctions.

The process should not be rushed simply because the public found out about the results of the investigation.

The pope is not a CEO racing to appease the board and the shareholders. We are all a bit too used to corporate public relations tactics. The church is not an NGO.
 
Ardent_Fire said:
People can be forgiven, but some sins deserve punishment and have lasting consequences. It is a very dangerous thing to allow any known abuser to be rehabilitated and returned to public life and ministry, under any circumstances, whether it’s the local parish priest or a cardinal. I’m not just pointing the figure at Francis because it’s been a mistake made by the Church as a whole that we’re now paying a price for. Zero tolerance has to mean zero tolerance.
Click to expand...
And this isn’t even about zero tolerance. The man did not repent! There is no question of human mercy.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
Is 18 years a nice leisurely time in which to conduct an investigation of a cardinal molesting seminarians?
Click to expand...
Let’s untangle some things…

The investigation in New York was regarding abuse of children. The investigation found those accusations credible. He was officially removed from ministry and sent to a life of penance by Pope Francis. He is awaiting a canonical trial.

His deplorable acts with adult seminarians is a different matter. Who knew what and when is yet to be determined.
 
There’s historically been an understanding of many sins of vice as being a weakness of character, often a momentary weakness. Like alcoholism. That wasn’t a disease some people become predisposed to, it was just a weakness of character.

And in some ways of course it is. But we also have better psychology nowadays regarding predispositions and recidivism and rehab.

We are called to forgive people, but that doesn’t mean leaving them with power if that power allows them to abuse others. I feel I haven’t said anything productive.
 
mrsdizzyd said:
His deplorable acts with adult seminarians is a different matter. Who knew what and when is yet to be determined.
Click to expand...
The Vatican was informed in 2000. Someone dropped the ball, in a massive way. If Vigano is to be believed, all three popes dropped the ball. But even if Vigano isn’t to be believed, there is a huge problem here.
 
Wesrock said:
There’s historically been an understanding of many sins of vice as being a weakness of character, often a momentary weakness. Like alcoholism. That wasn’t a disease some people become predisposed to, it was just a weakness of character.
Click to expand...
I am same-sex attracted, and I have dealt with associated vices. Trust me, coercing much younger men into sexual contact is not something that I could easily fall into as a “momentary weakness of character.” It wouldn’t happen by accident, or just because it was a rough day. It is a sign of complete moral abdication. If the hierarchy thinks of abuse and harassment as a little foible, we have a huge problem.
Wesrock said:
We are called to forgive people, but that doesn’t mean leaving them with power if that power allows them to abuse others.
Click to expand...
100% agree.
 
Last edited:
Prodigal_Son said:
40.png
mrsdizzyd:
His deplorable acts with adult seminarians is a different matter. Who knew what and when is yet to be determined.
Click to expand...
The Vatican was informed in 2000. Someone dropped the ball, in a massive way. If Vigano is to be believed, all three popes dropped the ball. But even if Vigano isn’t to be believed, there is a huge problem here.
Click to expand...
They were informed of accusations and rumors in 2000. By 2006 those rumors had yet to be investigated. We have no idea what happened after 2006.

Yes, someone dropped the ball. Who? When? Why? These are things we do not know.

One very obvious thing is that Pope Francis did not become Pope until 2013. By then no official action had been taken. Vigano’s claim of canonical sanctions has not been confirmed. In fact, the reporting of the NCR suggests that he is mistaken and that Pope Benedict only made a personal request to McCarrick to lay low.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
40.png
Wesrock:
There’s historically been an understanding of many sins of vice as being a weakness of character, often a momentary weakness. Like alcoholism. That wasn’t a disease some people become predisposed to, it was just a weakness of character.
Click to expand...
I am same-sex attracted, and I have dealt with associated vices. Trust me, coercing much younger men into sexual contact is not something that I could easily fall into as a “momentary weakness of character.” It wouldn’t happen by accident, or just because it was a rough day. It is a sign of complete moral abdication. If the hierarchy thinks of abuse and harassment as a little foible, we have a huge problem.
Click to expand...
Forgive me, yes, coercion/rape is definitely more than just a “weakness of character” under any definition.
 
Wesrock said:
Forgive me, yes, coercion/rape is definitely more than just a “weakness of character” under any definition.
Click to expand...
But I think you’re right that the Church doesn’t realize these differences. Some priests think, “It’s all mortal sin,” and then just elide the differences. But when I see some Catholics who see no difference between a priest looking at pornography and a priest coercing a parishioner into sex, I am just utterly befuddled. The difference seems gigantic to me.
 
Wesrock said:
There’s historically been an understanding of many sins of vice as being a weakness of character, often a momentary weakness. Like alcoholism. That wasn’t a disease some people become predisposed to, it was just a weakness of character.

And in some ways of course it is. But we also have better psychology nowadays regarding predispositions and recidivism and rehab.

We are called to forgive people, but that doesn’t mean leaving them with power if that power allows them to abuse others. I feel I haven’t said anything productive.
Click to expand...
No, actually I know what you mean. Especially the bolded part.

I think one of the mistakes made in previous decades were abusers were sent to “rehab” – like sex addiction or alcoholism. This is what happened in my own parish and diocese. An individual’s condition was said to be “improved” and they were returned to ministry in another parish or diocese. It’s all good and well to repent and try to rehabilitate someone but obviously given what we know now with repetitive behavior of abusers, even if someone is genuinely sorry, they just can’t be active ministers anymore. Nobody can afford that risk.
 
Yes you make a very good point. When I was pursing my Bachelor’s of Science in Nursing in the 1980’s common teaching was that inappropriate sexual desires toward a minor child could be "cured’ via different methods.

With the recidivism rate so high we found out these “treatments” were not at all helpful , sadly.

Now we know differently.

I pray for all involved in the abuse of children and trust in God’s mercy and justness.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
Thus, I wouldn’t call it speculation.
Click to expand...
Then we disagree. :woman_shrugging:One side of a story, within an organization the average person knows very little about, is NOT a balanced understanding of the situation, IMO. Thus, the need for information and transparency, NOT action or speech supporting action based on incomplete information.
mrsdizzyd said:
The process should not be rushed simply because the public found out about the results of the investigation.
Click to expand...
This. This. This.
mrsdizzyd said:
The pope is not a CEO racing to appease the board and the shareholders. We are all a bit too used to corporate public relations tactics. The church is not an NGO.
Click to expand...
And this!
mrsdizzyd said:
Let’s untangle some things…
Click to expand...
Again, a need for people who are so critical to sit down and understand the situation, all it’s leads/dead ends/could have beens BEFORE suggesting action and outrage.

Again, we can neither forgive nor punish nor remove from office nor make recommendations until we know more information. Therefore, the question is not “how do we make the Church pay for these crimes and put measures into place to prevent them”, the question is “Where do we get credible information?” None of the sources I know of have a lack of bias.
 
therese1998 said:
Then we disagree. :woman_shrugging:One side of a story, within an organization the average person knows very little about, is NOT a balanced understanding of the situation, IMO.
Click to expand...
I never said it was a balanced understanding. I absolutely want the hierarchy to speak out and give their side of the story. Until they do, however, I will believe the undeniably credible person who has spoken. (Vigano’s credibility is attested to by dozens of the bishops and commentators that I trust the most).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top