McCarrick Report: a great relief

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In some countries, there is no “automatically guilty,” but rather “innocent until proven guilty.”
 
Here is a question.

Why might the McCarrick report be completely silent on the influence McCarrick had on the subsequent appointment of US bishops?

Any takers?
 
Because you misrepresented the report in your since deleted statement
 
Last edited:
Maximian said:
Why? It’s freely available on the internet.
Click to expand...
I see you changed your premise from
Maximian said:
I’m sure I’m not alone in being mightily reassured by the McCarrick Report which makes it clear that the main persons responsible for him getting away with it for so long were Pope Saint John Paul II, Pope Benedict, Cardinal Mueller and Archbishop Vigano. No blame whatever rests with the Holy Father.
Click to expand...
Maximian said:
I’m sure I’m not alone in being mightily reassured by the McCarrick Report which makes it clear . . . that McCarrick deceived many and there was systemic failure in the clerical culture that enabled him and failed, at key points, to investigate allegations against him.
Click to expand...
The latter premise is fair, reasonable and supports the findings.
 
Last edited:
It isn’t a misrepresentation.

And to be disingenuous means to pretend not to know something which I perfectly well know. I have done no such thing.
 
Last edited:
I accept the moderator’s changes but they do not well represent my reading of the report, a reading which is by no means unique to me.

 
Last edited:
Maximian said:
Actually it is, if prosecution lawyers want to make the effort.
Click to expand...
I don’t know how things work in your country, but that’s not a theory of sexual harassment that would pass the laugh test in the US.
 
What I’ve never understood is why haven’t more catholic clergy been arrested, tried, and convicted of child molestation in a court of law? Does law enforcement, as a general rule, not pursue these cases?
 
davidharper said:
What I’ve never understood is why haven’t more catholic clergy been arrested, tried, and convicted of child molestation in a court of law? Does law enforcement, as a general rule, not pursue these cases?
Click to expand...
A lot of these cases are quite old. The offenders are dead, or the statute of limitations has passed.
 
Last edited:
The vast majority of all cases of sex abuse, by all kinds of perpetrators, do not result in criminal prosecution in the US. Sex abuse is far common than most people believe.

Most cases that are “substantiated”, or similar term, mean there is “some credibile Evidence”. That’s far below the level of criminal conviction, though a relatively few cases do rise to a higher level of evidence, and do get prosecuted.

Sex abuse allegations against priests are far more likely to be reported than allegations against other persons.
 
Last edited:
It should be told that during the Papacy of St Pope John II, Cardinal Angelo Sodano was the Nuncio. Cardinal Sodano was known for not only keeping information from the Pope, but providing him with false glowing reports. He did this with Marcial Maciel. It was why people were confused when Pope John Paul II awarded Fr Maciel. Pope John Paul II was blindsided by Cardinal Sodano as Pope John Paul II was ill at the time.
 
From what I’ve read of Cardinal McCarrick’s antics with seminarians, I’m a little surprised that McCarrick did not go through life with numerous bruises from being decked by seminarians on whom he attempted sexual assault.
 
StudentMI said:
40.png
Raxus:
I’m saying you weren’t in anyone’s head to know why they made the decisions they made.
Click to expand...
One can speculate why a now saint refused to believe accusations from multiple sources regarding an abusive cleric. One can also speculate why this isn’t the only case where he did so.
Click to expand...
According to McCarrick Report: Vatican details McCarrick's career and decades of sexual misconduct
About three months before the appointment, Pope John Paul II had received a letter from McCarrick through his personal secretary, Bishop Stanislaw Dziwisz.

In the August 2000 letter, McCarrick denied O’Connor’s accusations against him and declared he had never had sexual relations with anyone, while while stating he would “do whatever the Holy Father asked of me.”

The letter convinced John Paul II that McCarrick was telling the truth, the report states. A footnote in the report also notes that people close to the pope said he was inclined to believe allegations of sexual misconduct against clerics were false, based on his experience in communist Poland, “where rumors and innuendo had been used to damage the reputations of Church leaders.”

After that letter, McCarrick became Archbishop of Washington, and a cardinal.
Click to expand...
So apparently, St. Pope John Paul II (due to his experience in Poland) was used to fake slander being made against priests & bishops, and had a tendency to believe such things were anti-Catholic smeers, like the Communists did in Poland.
 
I am comforted by the acknowledgement and proof that the McCarrick issue is decades old. Making it clear that those trying to hang this issue around the neck of the current Pontiff are wrong. Is it fair to say that Francis was late in taking decisive action, sure. Is it also correct to say that Pope Francis did indeed redress the issue with severe penalty, yes.

What is missing from the report, in my view, is reference to former or current administration in the Church who played a roll in covering up the situation… seems to remain silent in order to not implicate prelates…

Vigano clearly knew about the issue and chose to remain silent until a time came where he decided to come public on the issue years and years after the fact… One hopes his coming forward was not calculated to inflict maximum harm on the current Pope.
 
Last edited:
godisgood77 said:
Vigano clearly knew about the issue and chose to remain silent until a time came where he decided to come public on the issue years and years after the fact… One hopes his coming forward was not calculated to inflict maximum harm on the current Pope.
Click to expand...
In defense of +Vigano, in his first letter he implies the fact that didn’t act on McCarrick and that he was doing Penance for that.

🧐
 
phil19034 said:
In defense of +Vigano, in his first letter he implies the fact that didn’t act on McCarrick and that he was doing Penance for that.
Click to expand...
Taking no accountability for oneself other than vague implications while blasting the current pope is hardly “penance”
 
Thanks for the video, unfortunately the interviewee doesn’t say anything which you did. He does however say that Pope Francis got a “free pass” as he puts it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top