US Vatican cardinal: "Not once did I even suspect" McCarrick

  • Thread starter Thread starter KMG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh yes, McCarrick was just a normal bishop, doing business as usual things.

It’s not like he ever favored gay-friendly clergy and rejected men of traditional leanings. It’s not like he ever promoted the former and drove the latter out of his seminaries.
 
Unlike (I suspect) many of the CAF posters writing about this deviant, I knew the man. I knew him when he was merely a bishop, not an archbishop.

And I know that if you were gay-friendly (being cute helped), your future was assured under his auspices.

If you had the remotest traditional leanings…you were soon in some friendly neighboring or close to neighboring diocese where you wouldn’t be persecuted or told you needed “counseling” (McCarrick’s favorite weapon against traditionalists).
 
Let’s let that sink in a bit. If you expressed interest in wearing a cassock, you needed counseling. If you were fine with being sodomized by the bishop…you were a privileged soul.
 
Sure. But—as terrible as these deeds of McCarrick’s are—I don’t think we can say that these proclivities were his sole focus, nor the primary driving force behind his every action.

Going back to the article in the OP, Farrell—a man who was made a bishop by McCarrick and served as his right-hand man for his 5 years in DC—says he knew nothing of these things. Now, maybe you don’t believe him, but what he says seems plausible enough to me that I can give him the benefit of the doubt for the moment.

This would at least illustrate that not everyone whom McCarrick tried to move up the hierarchical ladder was someone who was in on his conspiracy.

Maybe more details will come to light. I just don’t think such a conspiracy is the simplest explanation for everything that has happened.
 
OK. So if this is all true, did you ever think about reported anything to anyone?

If not, why not?

I mean, I agree, the man was a deviant, and I am struggling with how no one seemed to know or care enough to do anything about it then.
 
And I predict that within a few months at most, several current pastors and at least one retired bishop will be the next to go.
 
So it’s been said.
Sad to think that it went on for that long and no one in the Church saw fit to do anything.

At least now, maybe some justice will be done.
 
At least two “nearby” bishops were known to be refuges who welcomed McCarrick’s rejects. Of course those bishops knew what was going on, but for the sake of avoiding public scandal they never denounced McCarrick. I do not blame them for what happened. I blame McCarrick and his co-conspirators. Some of whom today are prominent priests.
 
The man was not simply a sexual sinner. He actively excluded men of traditional leanings from the seminary. Of course those men of traditional leanings were not interested in his Friday night beach house sex orgies. Which, I assure you, really did happen.
 
I certainly hope the air is cleared throughout all of this. As painful and scandalous as this whole ordeal is, I am glad it is out in the open.
 
KMG said:
At least two “nearby” bishops were known to be refuges who welcomed McCarrick’s rejects. Of course those bishops knew what was going on, but for the sake of avoiding public scandal they never denounced McCarrick. I do not blame them for what happened. I blame McCarrick and his co-conspirators. Some of whom today are prominent priests.
Click to expand...
You may not blame those other Bishops, but I say the need to share some of it.

They didn’t want scandal?! You have got to be joking? Didn’t they think it would be a bigger scandal the longer it festered?

It is exactly this culture that needs to be rooted out of leadership positions and replaced with transparent leaders who are going to hold all accountable, for their actions and their inactions.
 
CilladeRoma said:
You may not blame those other Bishops, but I say the need to share some of it.

They didn’t want scandal?! You have got to be joking? Didn’t they think it would be a bigger scandal the longer it festered?
Click to expand...
By not speaking up, they allowed more young men to be abused. They most certainly are to blame.
 
All the dioceses and parishes I have resided in have been, as far as I know, free of major priestly scandal. So I’m not sure what to make of the alleged “lavender mafia.” I don’t doubt that it may exist or have existed in some seminaries or some priestly circles, but I think the name is a little misleading. It would be more of a group of like minded individuals rather than conspirators. But I’m just guessing.

Also, to the extent that homosexuality came to be thought of as normal, those in such groups may not even have thought of themselves as acting wrongly, or even against their vows: After all, priestly celibacy has to do with not marrying women. Maybe they thought of sexual immorality as something that only had to do with male-female relations. Again, just a guess.
 
CilladeRoma said:
All I am doing is pointing out that NOT ALL ABUSE AT THE HANDS OF PRIESTS AND BISHOPS IS HOMOSEXUAL IN NATURE- SO THEREFORE ALL PREDATORS IN THE CHURCH ARE NOT GAY!!!
Click to expand...
This is a direct quote from the USCCB - John Jay report about the investigation of sexual abuse by members of the Catholic clergy that was done in 2002. These statistics speak for themselves.

"The results of our study indicated that of all victims whose gender was reported,
(Table 4.3.1) 81% were male and 19% were female. (emphasis mine)

Table 4.3.1 GENDER OF ALLEGED VICTIM
  • Gender ****** Count **** % of Total
  • Male ******** 8,499 ***** 80.9%
  • Female ****** 2,004 ***** 19.1%
  • Transsexual ***** 2 ******** .0%
  • Total ******* 10,505 *****100.0%
98.5% of surveys reported the gender of the alleged victim."

Typically, heterosexual men do not sexually abuse boys.
 
Last edited:
JimG said:
Also, to the extent that homosexuality came to be thought of as normal, those in such groups may not even have thought of themselves as acting wrongly, or even against their vows: After all, priestly celibacy has to do with not marrying women. Maybe they thought of sexual immorality as something that only had to do with male-female relations. Again, just a guess.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church teaches:
“2357 … Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”

Priests take a Vow of Celibacy when they receive Holy Orders. This is an excerpt from New Advent:

"Celibacy is the renunciation of marriage implicitly or explicitly made, for the more perfect observance of chastity, by all those who receive the Sacrament of Orders in any of the higher grades. The character of this renunciation, as we shall see, is differently understood in the Eastern and in the Western Church. Speaking, for the moment, only of Western Christendom, the candidates for orders are solemnly warned by the bishop at the beginning of the ceremony regarding the gravity of the obligation which they are incurring. He tells them:

“You ought anxiously to consider again and again what sort of a burden this is which you are taking upon you of your own accord. Up to this you are free. You may still, if you choose, turn to the aims and desires of the world (licet vobis pro artitrio ad caecularia vota transire). But if you receive this order (of the subdiaconate) it will no longer be lawful to turn back from your purpose. You will be required to continue in the service of God, and with His assistance to observe chastity and to be bound for ever in the ministrations of the Altar, to serve who is to reign.” (bold mine-T)

By stepping forward despite this warning, when invited to do so, and by co-operating in the rest of the ordination service, the candidate is understood to bind himself equivalently by a vow of chastity. He is henceforth unable to contract a valid marriage, and any serious transgression in the matter of this vow is not only a grievous sin in itself but incurs the additional guilt of sacrilege."

The key word is not simply referring to their renunciation of “marriage”, but on living a life of chastity. A Priest stands In Persona Christi, which means, "in the Person of Christ". Why would you ever think that it might allow any kind of sexual activity? :confused:
 
80% is still not all!

There us a growing number of sisters who are coming out with reports of sexual abuse at the hands of priests & Bishop’s also. Those men are not gay.

This is a power problem first, a sex problem second.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top