Letter confirms Vatican officials knew of McCarrick allegations in 2000

[Prodigal_Son]

…the question is “Where do we get credible information?” None of the sources I know of have a lack of bias.

As any lawyer will tell you, you don’t need unbiased information to make a judgment. You just need biased information from both sides, and documentary evidence.

 

[angel12]

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.

That was the conventional wisdom at the time. And I don’t think we can really blame a bishop, who was told by medical authorities that this would work, for trying it. But the very first time a priest who had been “treated” did it again, that should have put an end to it. The children should have been the most important consideration, and they weren’t.

 

[commenter]

Wesrock:

Forgive me, yes, coercion/rape is definitely more than just a “weakness of character” under any definition.

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.

The real gigantic difference is between the priest who would intentionally look at pornography, and the priest who would not. In the 1960s it became accepted, even recommended, for priests and other professionals to look at porn, to better understand humanity. Purity was often ridiculed.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The real gigantic difference is between the priest who would intentionally look at pornography, and the priest who would not.

I will take your word for it. But sadly, men born after 1975 or so almost all have had periods of intentionally looking at pornography, and this includes Catholics. It is much easier to claim that this is an impediment to priesthood than it is to find a solution to this crisis.

 

[Theo2]

Wow! You know whether a person is unrepentant? I assume he was repentant and I am also sure Pope Francis told him to sin no more.

 

[Rob2]

I think I am missing something here. Yes, the “Vatican” seemed to have some information about this, but the “Vatican” does not necessarily mean the “Pope”.

No , @kgmlg , you are not missing anything .

You are the first one on this thread to show evidence that you have actually read the article whose link is in the OP .

The title @AZ42 gives to the thread is misleading , and members to their shame have jumped to the unfounded conclusion that the title is proof of something which it isn’t proof of .

The article is about alleged happenings prior to Pope Francis being elected Pope .

In the article Pope Francis only comes on the scene at the end when the article refers to the recent letter of Vigano .

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Wow! You know whether a person is unrepentant? I assume he was repentant and I am also sure Pope Francis told him to sin no more.

I sure do know whether a person is unrepentant, if he hasn’t acknowledged or apologized for the offenses to the people he actually abused and/or harassed. His failure to do that is (at least in several cases) well-documented.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

No , @kgmlg , you are not missing anything .

You are the first one on this thread to show evidence that you have actually read the article whose link is in the OP .

The title @AZ42 gives to the thread is misleading , and members to their shame have jumped to the unfounded conclusion that the title is proof of something which it isn’t proof of .

The article is about alleged happenings prior to Pope Francis being elected Pope .

In the article Pope Francis only comes on the scene at the end when the article refers to the recent letter of Vigano .

Why, pray tell, would an allegation of this seriousness NOT be reported to the Pope (Pope John Paul II, at the time)?

 

[Theo2]

Oh, so when you sin and hurt all your brothers and sisters, you have apologized to each of them. No, you apologized and ask forgiveness from the church. That is what the Cardinal did.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Oh, so when you sin and hurt all your brothers and sisters, you have apologized to each of them.

I certainly have apologized to everyone I have ever seriously hurt, if this hurt was brought to my attention by the person. That’s just minimal decency!

 

[Theo2]

That is a very good thing to do. The person’s confessor sets the requirements for an individual sinner, however. Be careful laying on your requirements on others. Be merciful!

 

[joeybaggz]

True. And we can’t assume a Pope is aware of everything that every employee in the Vatican knows.

The problem in my opinion is not that Pope Francis had information he should have acted on, but that he often acts with only limited information.

And I think some are missing the point that the McCarrick situation occurred when Francis was still in Argentina as a bishop/archbishop. It was not his responsibility to act. Besides, the responsibility of acting on abuse claims is the responsibility of the abuser’s superior. In this case it was not Francis. When McCarrick was a cardinal and it come to light, it was Benedict XVI’s responsibility which he discharged. Francis, as one other poster did not restore McCarrick to a position where his abuse could continue, he simple (again as another poster said) removed a restriction allowing McCarrick to continue in some clerical post.
Stick with the facts. This discussion of Francis’ responsibility in the McCarrick is like herding cats.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I don’t want the pope to resign. But how is it that we as Catholics can dismiss abusive behavior as long as minors are not involved? How can the bishops (especially the Bishop of Rome!) continuously look the other way while a clergy member continuously breaks their vows? Even joking that they need to “hide the handsome ones” before he visits the seminaries? And not just look the other way, but promote him? Why are we making excuses, attempting to own play or shift blame, and attempting to shame others into silence? How is that transparency and zero tolerance?

I want Pope Francis to stay an lead. He needs to speak on this clearly and show us how this mess came to be while laying out a plan to ensure we won’t be bombarded again in 16 years.

I truly feel it will take a younger Pope to tackle this huge global problem in the
Catholic Church once and for all.

 

[Rob2]

Rob2:

No , @kgmlg , you are not missing anything .

You are the first one on this thread to show evidence that you have actually read the article whose link is in the OP .

The title @AZ42 gives to the thread is misleading , and members to their shame have jumped to the unfounded conclusion that the title is proof of something which it isn’t proof of .

The article is about alleged happenings prior to Pope Francis being elected Pope .

In the article Pope Francis only comes on the scene at the end when the article refers to the recent letter of Vigano .

Why, pray tell, would an allegation of this seriousness NOT be reported to the Pope (Pope John Paul II, at the time)?

I don’t know what you are talking about .

My word were about the title of the thread , the article in the OP , both of which misleadingly focus attention on Pope Francis .

Why do my words prompt your question ?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

What you’re demonstrating is the lay equivalent of clericalism. You talk as if the Church were a system of rules, not a family of people. A sinner who shows no external sign of repentance has not repented, regardless of what happens in confession. Confession is not a blank check.

 

[jack63]

I read these confused actions and accusations by Vigano…

My question is this. How is the Pope wrong to be silent on these accusations. I think the Pope was right to be silent.

Time is showing how totally confused Vigano and his accusations are. Also, if the Pope answers Vigano, it would only legitimize Vigano.

Lastly, when these accusations were made, the Pope was away from the Vatican in Ireland asking the Irish for forgiveness…(I’m of Irish decent, and I don’t envy the Pope on that one). It would be a terrible idea for the Pope to try to make his case at this point in time…when people are so upset. Obviously, the Pope’s accusers have their own agenda.

 

[therese1998]

Even the most “credible” of men can have an agenda…even if they can justify it or remain ignorant to it.

Look, you believe what you want. I’m going to wait until the facts are in. All the angst and agitating in the world isn’t going to make this problem resolved until we have reliable and unbiased information.

 

[13pollitos]

Our Lady of Good Success (Ecuador) 1610:

“The Devil will try to persecute the ministers of the Lord in every possible way; he will labor with cruel and subtle astuteness to deviate them from the spirit of their vocation and will corrupt many of them. These depraved priests, who will scandalise the Christian people, will make the hatred of bad Catholics and the enemies of the Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church fall upon all priests. This apparent triumph of Satan will bring enormous suffering to the good Pastors of the Church, the many good priests, and the Supreme Pastor and Vicar of Christ on earth, who, a prisoner in the Vatican, will shed secret and bitter tears in the presence of his God and Lord, beseeching light, sanctity and perfection for all the clergy of the world, of whom he is King and Father.

In this supreme moment of need of the Church, the one who should speak will fall silent!”

 

[pnewton]

A few decades ago, boys entered seminary as young as 14. Teens not in seminary often visited there, sometimes overnight.

Do they still enter while in high school? The past and the present can’t be muddled.

 

[commenter]

Our Lady of Good Success (Ecuador) 1610:

“The Devil will try to persecute the ministers of the Lord in every possible way; he will labor with cruel and subtle astuteness to deviate them from the spirit of their vocation and will corrupt many of them. These depraved priests, who will scandalise the Christian people, will make the hatred of bad Catholics and the enemies of the Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church fall upon all priests. This apparent triumph of Satan will bring enormous suffering to the good Pastors of the Church, the many good priests, and the Supreme Pastor and Vicar of Christ on earth, who, a prisoner in the Vatican, will shed secret and bitter tears in the presence of his God and Lord, beseeching light, sanctity and perfection for all the clergy of the world, of whom he is King and Father.

In this supreme moment of need of the Church, the one who should speak will fall silent!”

This quote almost certainly is dated not from 1610, but from late 1800s or early 1900s, when the phrase “prisoner of the Vatican” was commonly used. In other parts of the quote there are anachronistic references to the Republic, rather than colony of ,Ecuador, and the Masons.