The McCarrick report has told us who is responsible for promoting McCarrick. Now we need a report on who McCarrick was responsible for promoting

[stpurl]

Where did you ever get in Tis’ remarks that she would NOT be concerned about corruption?

There are, after all, plenty of ways to explore possible wrongdoing in any institution rather than focusing solely on the protégés of one person.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

And in addition to your good points, it’s rather beyond my control to go around doing internal Church investigations. If I see my parish priests doing something corrupt, or happen on evidence elsewhere of a cleric being corrupt, I will report it. People in my community have actually done this when they saw their pastor on social media misusing funds from a private account, for example. (He was removed.)

Otherwise, there’s not much I can do here. This isn’t a government body with open records laws that I can read and then decide whether to vote for somebody. I don’t elect or choose my pastor, bishop or Pope.

 

[commenter]

“Sunlight is the best disinfectant”

This still carries a little weight, less as time goes on. At one time there was something called mainstream journalism, as opposed to tabloids.
At one time Commitment to impartial news coverage was the rule, and those with an agenda to the Right, Left, or other directions were the exception, with limited budgets or power.

In the world of 2020 we have to consider how information will be used, what actual effect on which persons, whether it’s a disinfectant or something else.

 

[Pitcairn17]

“Sunlight is the best disinfectant” or are the old saws to be also sidelined?

A report which neglects to engage in the investigation of who (if anyone) was promoted by McCarrick is almost worthless and shows contempt of the whole investigatory and reporting procedure.

There’s a fine line between “sunlight” and McCarthyite guilt-by-association. In fact, in this era of inflammatory, pervasive, social media driven persecution, guilt assumption, and cancel culture, I’m not sure there is any line at all. No one is proposing sweeping more under the rug, but the mere public identification that Bishop X was recommended by McCarrick is enough, in today’s world, to ruin that man and his ministry - with no regard at all for facts or truth, putting that bishop in the impossible position of proving a negative, that in fact he did nothing wrong.

 

[Nicene]

If McCarthyism taught us anything it’s that witch hunts for phantoms is a very bad idea, ruining good peoples lives over innuendo and association.

 

[pnewton]

I am fine without it.

I never did believe in guilt by association.

 

[OKComputer]

We is every member of the Church which has been harmed by corruption.

Exactly. I think the cover ups have been more damaging to the reputation of the church than the original scandals have been.

 

[Beryllos]

I note that the above quotation is misattributed to me, and was in fact written by @Maximian.

 

[whatistrue]

I think the cover ups have been more damaging to the reputation of the church

But does that mean that we should tar all priests promoted or recommended by McCarrick with the same brush? Do we assume that he never in all the years he was in a position of authority actually did his job properly but only and always helped out people with the same “predilection” as he had?

 

[commenter]

OKComputer:

I think the cover ups have been more damaging to the reputation of the church

But does that mean that we should tar all priests promoted or recommended by McCarrick with the same brush? Do we assume that he never in all the years he was in a position of authority actually did his job properly but only and always helped out people with the same “predilection” as he had?

You are right about that. there are literally thousands of priests, bushops and Laity he either promoted or nominated for their jobs.

On the other hand, I have concerns if there was or is a “network” who are not abusive or gay themselves, but are compatible to certain views especially in sexual issues that aren’t compatible with the Catholic Faith.

He and they may have promoted/protected each other. Theory and practice may have reinforced each other. He may have encouraged appointment of someone who has no predilection, but would oppose any action against anyone who is gay, even if they regret his actions.

 

[whatistrue]

Exactly. I think a good case can be made to investigate and “follow the trail where it leads”, but to do so quietly and privately and not just publish a list of everyone with any sort of association. Some people will still cry “coverup” but I think most reasonable people will understand, especially if there are visible results on some who were bad actors and shown to be such.

 

[Beryllos]

He and they may have … He may have …

When we speculate, we must be careful to avoid rash judgment. I mean, there are people whose job or calling is to worry about corruption and discreetly gather testimony and ascertain the truth. When it is done publicly or in the media, discretion is lost and sometimes truth as well. When it is done internally, perhaps independent audits could guard against further cover-ups while still respecting confidentiality and the reputation of innocent clergy.

 

[CilladeRoma]

Well, St. JPII is the one who elevated McCarrick to his status. Should we now start looking at every single appointment/decision he made during his Pontificate and see who/what all those people have been up to for nearly 50 years?

Where will it end?

 

[commenter]

Exactly. I think a good case can be made to investigate and “follow the trail where it leads”, but to do so quietly and privately and not just publish a list of everyone with any sort of association. Some people will still cry “coverup” but I think most reasonable people will understand, especially if there are visible results on some who were bad actors and shown to be such.

Maybe that’s what’s already being done, or has been done. Maybe the results are already “visible”, to the persons who need that information.
Maybe the “bad actors” have already been “shown to be such”, to those whose jobs require that information.

Of course, I and probably you are not among those who can use this information in our own job.