McCarrick Speaks: Disgraced Ex-Cardinal Maintains His Innocence

[goout]

He is also dismissed from the clerical state.
so I don’t know whether he is currently wearing the collar or not…or prohibited from it, or encouraged to wear it privately. I dunno.

The point is that NCR

1. gives space to a story from a secular barely-news outlet
2. gives publicity to a person who is supposed to be living a quiet life of repentance.

In my opinion NCR exercised poor judgment.

 

[goout]

Tis_Bearself:

No, he shouldn’t, unless he is compelled to do so by a legal process.
In the USA we have a right to remain silent and that applies to McCarrick as much as it does to anyone else.
He should hush up.

I beg to differ.
Hush up what?
The truth needs to come out.

We have the right to remain silent. Yes, we can plead the fifth.
But there is a responsibility to protect children. There are few sins that call out for God’s vengeance and there is one sin that Christ said it would be best if the sinner were never born-the sin of stumbling children.

If children are going to be safe in the church, then the truth must come out and new patterns of protection established. If it doesn’t, it will be business as usual and atrocities will continue against children in the church.

But you are right that as early as a year before the allegations were made public he was still in a very important position for an 80+ year old Cardinal, carrying out special tasks for Pope Francis.

Thank you for acknowledging that.

Have you not been reading the news for the last two years?
“hushed up” hardly applies to what has happened.
The man has been publicly sanctioned by the Church and his crimes have been very visible. As it should be. Giving the man more visibility to project his insane denial is not furthering justice for anyone. We ought to be talking about the main problem, which is the predatory abuse of young men by older men.

And the Church is probably the most vigilant institution on the planet in terms of protecting it’s flock. More so than teachers unions and Boy Scouts for sure.

How does sensationalism further the protection of anyone?

 

[commenter]

I beg to differ.
Hush up what?
The truth needs to come out.

We have the right to remain silent. Yes, we can plead the fifth.
But there is a responsibility to protect children.

Excuse me, but we don’t need to “plead the fifth” to avoid speaking to journalists. Do we really rely on (sensationalist) journalists to pursue truth, is the media really who we rely on to protect children? The tabloids?

A Google search suggests Slate supports abortion. Is this who we trust for “truth” and “protect children”?

 

[Cathoholic]

goout . . .

And why is the NCR picturing him in collar?

Excellent point goout.

NCR should know Mr. McCarrick is not allowed to present himself as a priest.

Admittedly that does not mean the media can’t show such pictures, but the article would be more of a reflection of reality of what has occurred, if they showed him dressed in “civvies”.

 

[commenter]

goout . . .

And why is the NCR picturing him in collar?

The way Catholic journalism is declining, in 5 years they’ll have models showing the latest swimsuits to accompany their article on Global Warming. Then CM,1P5 and the rest of the Lurid Legion will have to pull off something Sinister/Titulating/Disgusting/Enticing to win back internet traffic.

 

[MamaJewel]

If some legal authority wants to sue him or criminally charge him, then they have to make a case just like any other crime or lawsuit situation. But you seem to be asking for something way beyond the bounds of US due process. That isn’t going to happen.

If he did not break any laws, why can’t he speak? Again, there is a need to know what weaknesses in policy and leadership structure/ function permitted this widespread abuse throughout the global church.

If he did break laws, he needs to be handed over to authorities, not protected by the church.

Hospitals are legally responsible for reporting bad doctors, the church should be held to the same standard.

He is also dismissed from the clerical state.

What does this mean?

Did the RCC sever its ties with him. If yes, what does anyone care who interviews him? If no, why not? Why wouldn’t the church sever ties?

When you are dismissed from a job, you are told to gather your items and security walks you out the door. The end. There maybe certain limitations on what you can do or say, if you’ve signed a non-compete agreement.

Have you not been reading the news for the last two years?

I’ve been reading about the scandals since 2012. However, I didn’t follow McCarrick closely because the past method of operation in the church was to cover sexual assault up and move priests around.

And the Church is probably the most vigilant institution on the planet in terms of protecting it’s flock.

One can only hope.
I’m very concerned though, because I didn’t see a Root Cause Analysis with a breakdown of where the protection process went wrong, the current steps to change the hierarchy’s culture that led to the breakdown, and the tools being implemented throughout the church, from hierarchy to laity to create long-term, morally sound and physically strong protections of vulnerable populations and those under authority of leaders.

Excuse me, but we don’t need to “plead the fifth” to avoid speaking to journalists.

…suggests Slate supports abortion. Is this who we trust for “truth” and “protect children”?

Never said that we did need to plead the 5th to journalists. My remark was written in response to Tis_Bearself’s response about being “compelled by legal process”.

Who cares about Slate? We should be able to trust the RCC to do the right thing and protect children. Especially when the church espouses that it is a moral institution.

 

[commenter]

Did the RCC sever its ties with him. If yes, what does anyone care who interviews him? If no, why not? Why wouldn’t the church sever ties?

The Church doesn’t sever ties with anyone. Even if someone were excommunicated, they can still walk into any confessional and try to start the process of getting it lifted. Even the unbaptized atheist, if needs help, can call on the local RC parish.

We do not know if McCarrick has been excommunicated, and/or, if lifted. Keep in mind that is a remedy, not a penalty.

Even if a man has been restricted by the Church from calling himself a priest, this does not stop him from doing so. There are organizations consisting of men who identify as Catholic priests, who have likely been excommunicated, certainly forbidden to function as a priest. But they do, very publicly.

 

[MamaJewel]

The Church doesn’t sever ties with anyone. Even if someone were excommunicated, they can still walk into any confessional and try to start the process of getting it lifted. Even the unbaptized atheist, if needs help, can call on the local RC parish.

This type of situation is not the context in which I am posting. Rather, did RCC leadership dismiss “fire” McCarrick from his position? Did the RCC offer some type of severance package and under what terms? Researching online, readers can discern multiple situations in which defrocked priests were given substantial monthly payments from the church. In the meantime, their innocent child-victims did not receive adequate restitution for help to cope/ overcome the crimes committed against them.

We do not know if McCarrick has been excommunicated, and/or, if lifted. Keep in mind that is a remedy, not a penalty.

Why isn’t this information available? It is the responsibility of RCC authorities to remedy the McCarrick situation. I’m not saying the church must ex-communicate. I really have a difficult time with excommunication. However, defrocking a priest and severing ties with the priest as a former employee seems most reasonable.

Making the Church a safer place and restoring trust would begin with RCC authorities divulging the steps taken to make sure McCarrick can no longer use the Church for his personal gain. In addition, RCC leadership would be responsible for divulging the exact steps being taken to ensure that McCarrick and other personality types like him will not be placed in power positions to exploit the church.

Even if a man has been restricted by the Church from calling himself a priest, this does not stop him from doing so.

Please don’t believe this for a moment. If my diocese was able to suppress public knowledge of child assault through settlement “gag orders” that hold a victim in contempt if he or she speaks of the abuse, then certainly the RCC leaders can request that the court orders a defrocked priest to cease representing himself as a priest, or else face contempt orders.

The entire scandal wasn’t that difficult to remedy in the first place. Church leadership should have held offenders accountable under church law and through state statute. Instead, it appears that earlier RCC leadership raised those priests who helped to protect the church’s reputation into later positions of power, such as bishops and cardinals. We can only hope that the younger generation of anointed bishops will steer the church away from the current unholiness of the scandal and into the light of Christ’s love.

 

[MamaJewel]

He preyed on people he knew personally and worked with or socialized with.

I don’t think we have to lay awake nights worrying about this unless he is actually seen by someone outside the friary, which hasn’t happened in all the time he’s been there.

Nooooo.
Nooooooo.
No, no, no, no.
No!

“He preyed upon people he worked with”.
Where is the human dignity in this?

McCarrick’s behavior is a violation of law. Such behavior is sexual harassment. If he preyed upon students, it’s sexual harassment. If he preyed upon co-workers, or those under his authority, it’s sexual harassment.

Just because someone is an adult does not make it ok to sexually harass that individual.