McCarrick May Be Defrocked

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximilian75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

McCarrick May Be Sanctioned, But the Cover-up Continues​

www.catholicculture.org

McCarrick may be sanctioned, but the cover-up continues

According to multiple reliable sources in Rome, former cardinal Theodore McCarrick will soon be laicized—defrocked—in punishment for multiple instances of sexual misconduct. The Vatican will announce the penalty, apparently, just before the long-awaited meeting of the sex-abuse problem. That’s...
www.catholicculture.org www.catholicculture.org
 
goout said:
Any corporation that did something like this would have heads rolling out the door, and we should be better than just any organization.
Click to expand...
We are, which is why heads aren’t “rolling out the door.” This is something you either get, or don’t. What the Church is doing is contrary to the worldly method of operating. In all this, even the exercise of justice, McCarrick is still seen as a patient. There will be millions that will never be satisfied, even if we did literally lop off heads, because for many justice is all there is. Mercy does not enter into the equation. I consider this to be the line between justice and vengeance. Vengeance is justice with no balance of charity or mercy.
 
The “cover-up” will always continue, for most, as too many do not understand that word, or the Catholic understanding of truth. They believe in the right of the public to know anything they deem they need to know. It is what drives tabloid gossip.
 
pnewton said:
40.png
goout:
Any corporation that did something like this would have heads rolling out the door, and we should be better than just any organization.
Click to expand...
We are, which is why heads aren’t “rolling out the door.” This is something you either get, or don’t. What the Church is doing is contrary to the worldly method of operating. In all this, even the exercise of justice, McCarrick is still seen as a patient. There will be millions that will never be satisfied, even if we did literally lop off heads, because for many justice is all there is. Mercy does not enter into the equation. I consider this to be the line between justice and vengeance. Vengeance is justice with no balance of charity or mercy.
Click to expand...
What the clerics are doing here is contrary to the Church’s way of operating.
There is no dichotomy between justice and mercy. Justice is merciful, mercy is just. Vengeance is merely punishment meted out with no goal toward love. Prudence and wisdom knows the difference between these things.

The man is residing next door to a school, which is neither prudent or wise. Clerics in these positions should make better decisions (hopefully) than other wordly institutions.

They don’t get it, still after all the suffering and victimization and scandal.
 
Last edited:
goout said:
There is no dichotomy between justice and mercy.
Click to expand...
???
Where did you get “dichotomy” out of what I said? If I gave you that impression, it was not what I mean. You said it right, “Justice is merciful, mercy is just.”

As to what is prudent and wise, that is often a matter of opinion, not that I disagree with you on that point.
 
It seems to me, for the good of the Church, he must be laicized. If not, it will be one way the Church will be criticized for protecting the higher clerics. It has become the norm for priests to be laicized when credibly accused. Yet if you are an archbishop or a cardinal, you are not. That won’t look good. It is viewed, rightly or wrongly, as the ultimate punishment the Church can give to a cleric, it has to be applied at all levels if the situations are the same.
 
If this is the beginning of a “Cleansing of the Temple”, Hurrah! Name them, all of them regardless of position, and remove them!
If this is merely a bone to divert attention, too little and way to late! This rot MUST be removed from Holy Mother Church. Now! It has gone on entirely too long.
On a trip to a mission parish that my parish sponsored, in 1973, Father X, and a couple of us 15 year old boys went to do some yard work. Turns out Fr. X liked teenage boys.I was lucky, one of my friends was not. Ruined his life. All Fr. X got was transferred to NJ. Later Fr. X was arrested and convicted of the same thing in NJ.
46 Years ago!!! And still we are dealing with this. Enough!🤬
 
Last edited:
Laicization is what is being done to pretty much all priests found guilty of abuse these days. It should be applied to McCarrick the same way as any other priest.

Part of what laicization does is it basically allows the Church to no longer be on the hook for providing for these men’s retirement. In McCarrick’s case, it further means that—when he dies—he will not be owed a funeral at the cathedral in DC, and interment in their crypt of former bishops.

I see the argument made by some here (and elsewhere) that laicization should not necessarily be pursued precisely because the Church surrenders any form of control over the man. That’s an interesting point. I’m not sure I buy that argument, but I’d be willing to hear it out and have my mind changed.
 
Last edited:
Joe_5859 said:
Laicization is what is being done to pretty much all priests found guilty of abuse these days. It should be applied to McCarrick the same way as any other priest.

Part of what laicization does is it basically allows the Church to no longer be on the hook for providing for these men’s retirement. In McCarrick’s case, it further means that—when he dies—he will not be owed a funeral at the cathedral in DC, and interment in their crypt of former bishops.

I see the argument made by some here (and elsewhere) that laicization should not necessarily be pursued precisely because the Church surrenders any form of control over the man. That’s an interesting point. I’m not sure I buy that argument, but I’d be willing to hear it out and have my mind changed.
Click to expand...
In my Diocese, some have been laicized, some not. I agree it likely should have been done more in the past.

This is not a one size fits all situation. There were some men who had inappropriate sexual contact one time, with an adult, 40 years ago. They owned up to it. Then they served as priests ,40 years. Should they be laicized now?

Should they be treated the same as those who molested children? Maybe, maybe not. Should they be treated the same as multiple offenders?

I think anyone who offended like McCarrick, and accepted repeated promotions, obviously not disclosing the truth should be laicized. There are horrible issues of dishonesty here.

But all others?
 
Last edited:
As today he is laicized. Where he will go next will depend on which of the “charitable” people he wishes to stay with.
 
He won’t likely go anywhere. If he is relatively comfortable where he is, he will stay there. He might, perhaps, be forced out by community pressure, but that is unlikely, and has nothing to do with being laicized.

Any pension rights he has are unaffected. He still can be named in lawsuits against himself and the Church. The Church will likely help defend him in lawsuits that also are against the Church, or at least the Church attorneys will have to cooperate with his. They really, really don’t want him subpoenaed as a witness against the Church.

Essentially all the laicization means is he can’t licitly say private Masses anymore (not to minimize the importance of that change).
 
Last edited:
What pension; and from whom? Also, why would the church continue his defense when this is not usually done for priests in a similar situation? What diocese would pay for this? I am curious…
 
DC I would think. I have no idea if they are paying him a pension, but if so I think it would have to be DC. I understand that Cardinal Wuerl arranged his current living situation.
 
Gabika50 said:
What pension; and from whom?
Click to expand...
Pension would come from his former employer, the Church, but in the USA pension rights are usually protected under civil law. So the Church is probably not legally permitted to stop paying him the pension, assuming his pension rights vested, which I would guess given his age happened a very, very long time ago.

The Church can stop paying for other things like his housing and health care, and they are not legally responsible as an employer for any future offenses he might commit.

If he is allowed to stay on at the monastery, that would be at the Church’s discretion (they could choose to kick him out) and he might be required to pay his own rent and expenses, assuming he has private resources which he almost certainly does.
 
Last edited:
The Archdiocese of Washington has no vested pension plan, so he can collect social security- not to worry, somebody will take him in. He will not be left out in the cold like so many equally guilty priests that were similary found guilty.
 
The Archdiocese of Washington has no vested pension plan? Source please?

They certainly do have such a plan.


Edited to add, sources have told WaPo that McCarrick has a pension and also resources of his own. Priests of his age, at his level, usually would have a good bit of money stashed away. He also may have had resources from sources other than his Church pay, such as inheritances. The former pastor of my parish church, which is definitely not in a wealthy area, had enough money to retire to a nice condominium, and he was never any sort of bishop or cardinal, just an ordinary pastor.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/reli...justice/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3bc4aed5db15
 
Last edited:
More reporting on McCarrick’s finances. Apparently he was so well off he declined to draw a pension from any of his dioceses.
I suppose if he needed it now he could perhaps start to draw it.

www.catholicnewsagency.com

Archbishop Theodore McCarrick has 'private income' in the event of laicization

Ahead of an expected decision in the case of Archbishop Theodore McCarrick, new details have emerged about his likely financial status in the event that he is laicized.
www.catholicnewsagency.com www.catholicnewsagency.com
 
So he used to distribute wads of cash to prelates at the Vatican???
You have to wonder if that was a contributing factor to the fact that the “open secret” of his decades of abuse never hindered his “career”.
 
I was a little alarmed at that article, which came from a Catholic source (and not one of the controversial ones either), implying pretty strongly that McCarrick may have committed financial misdeeds.

Then again if McCarrick was palling around with the likes of Bono and the Kennedys, he likely had all kinds of rich friends giving him money for whatever, no questions asked.
 
Last edited:
Gabika50 said:
, why would the church continue his defense when this is not usually done for priests in a similar situation? What diocese would pay for this? I am curious…
Click to expand...
If a diocese terminated all ministry by a man after the first credible disclosure…then later on he is accused in a later alleged incident, he is on his own. But if someone is looking for money now, for incidents committed while in the employ of the diocese, with their collar on, the diocese and he are jointly sued. The diocese will be on the hook for most
of the money if he loses. So they have to at least coordinate their defense with his.
Just because one accuser is credible, does not mean every accuser is.
(I know the trial lawyers themselves have no financial interest here, and try to weed out all spurious claims …
But a few might slip through.)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top