- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Church: Cardinal McCarrick Is A Molester

This has been a very long time coming: [1]

Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the Archbishop Emeritus of Washington, D.C., has been removed from public ministry after a credible allegation he abused a teen 50 years ago while serving as a priest in New York Archdiocese.

More:

Innocence? I believe McCarrick is lying, and that he knows he is lying. I have been waiting for this story to break since 2002.

Back then, I received a tip from a priest who had gone on his own dime to Rome, along with a group of prominent US Catholic laymen, to meet with an official for the Roman Curial congregation that names bishops. It had been rumored at the time that Theodore McCarrick, the Archbishop of Newark, was going to be moved to Washington, DC, and to be made a cardinal. This group traveled to Rome to warn the Vatican that McCarrick was a sexual harrasser of seminarians. The story this priest shared with me was that McCarrick had a habit of compelling seminarians to share his bed for cuddling. These allegations did not involve sexual molestation, but were clearly about unwanted sexual harassment. To refuse the archbishop’s bedtime entreaties would be to risk your future as a priest, I was told.

Rome was informed by these laymen — whose number included professionally distinguished Catholics in a position to understand the kind of harm this would cause –that McCarrick was sexually exploiting these seminarians, but it did no good. McCarrick received his appointment to the Washington archdiocese in 2000.

In early 2002, though, the priest who tipped me off wouldn’t go on the record. It would have meant the end of his priesthood, quite possibly. He gave me the name of a couple of medical figures who had been on the same journey. I called one, who confirmed it, but wouldn’t go on the record. I called the other, who gasped when I said it out loud, and who said, “If that were true, then I wouldn’t confirm it for the same reason Noah’s sons covered their father in his drunkenness.”

change_me

That’s where the investigation stood after a couple of days. For all I knew, these were only allegations. Then a personal friend of McCarrick’s — a closeted gay man, someone whose name you would know — contacted the news organization for which I was working on this story. The caller did so on McCarrick’s behalf, trying to get me pulled off the story. I won’t go into details, but the man who made the call conceded that McCarrick was guilty, but insisted that no laws had been broken, and therefore it wasn’t a big deal. My supervisor on the story, to his great credit, simply said to keep digging, but to keep him informed.

How did McCarrick find out? It turned out that the priest who tipped me off had only told his spiritual adviser, a well-known conservative cleric, who had almost certainly called McCarrick. My informant — remember, this was early 2002 — was still under the naive impression that you could tell the good guys from the bad guys in the Catholic scandal based on where they lined up theologically. Not true!

I never wrote the story about McCarrick, because I could not get anybody to go on the record. That spring, I fielded more than a few calls from Catholic priests from the New Jersey area who had direct personal knowledge of McCarrick’s sexual derring-do with seminarians. They would phone me, tell me what they knew, and then beg me to “do something”! I would tell them that I could do nothing until and unless they provided documents, and/or were willing to put their name to public accusations.

Nobody could or would do that. Whenever I would see Cardinal McCarrick on television that spring, wringing his hands about how terrible the abuse scandal was, and how the hierarchy really had no idea how extensive the crisis was, yadda yadda, I knew that I was looking at a world-class liar and hypocrite. Moreover, I knew for a fact that the Vatican had been warned about “Uncle Ted” before moving him to Washington, and that those warnings had meant nothing, because hey, Uncle Ted was well connected, and he was a champion fundraiser for the Church.

Let me make this clear: The Vatican had been warned in person, by credible Catholic laymen, and a Catholic priest in a position to know, that as Archbishop of Newark, Theodore McCarrick would compel seminarians under his authority to get in bed with him and cuddle him. These laymen traveled to Rome at their own expense to warn the Vatican about this man’s sickness. But Pope St. John Paul II, who I assume was not told of the allegations, made him a cardinal archbishop anyway.

Believe me, this single incident from the life of Uncle Ted, fifty years ago, is not the only one. I hope and pray to God that Theodore McCarrick is about to have his #MeToo moment. There are more, many more, stories to be told about Uncle Ted and his “ministry” to young men under his authority in the Church. I am grateful that they will now be coming out while he is still around to face some kind of justice, if only in the court of public opinion.

And there’s this: that Cardinal McCarrick was a sexual predator of some sort was the worst-kept secret among the East Coast media covering the church abuse scandal. Even though the McCarrick allegations, if true, clearly reflected deep moral corruption in a leading American Catholic figure, and were at the very least a matter of a man of great power within an organization using that power to compel those under him within the organization to satisfy his sexual desires. I wanted to pursue the story more deeply, and had an editor who was willing to let me do so, but I did not have the resources at the time to do the deep digging that was necessary. To the best of my knowledge, those journalists who did have the resources turned a blind eye to it. I do not know the reason, but I have my theories.

I do know this much: in 2012, one reporter I know personally nailed the McCarrick story, with on-the-record interviews and having dug up court papers. The major magazine for which he was doing the story killed it at the last minute. To this day he does not know why. Again, I have an idea, but it is only speculation. I do know from my extensive, detailed conversations with this journalist, as well as from my own conversations with sources in 2002, that there is a lot more on this story yet to come out — that is, if reporters and editors are interested in making sure Cardinal McCarrick has his #MeToo moment.

If.

A word for all you Catholic priests and laymen who contacted me 16 years ago about Cardinal McCarrick, and told me what you knew, but who would not go on the record about it — it is time for you to find your voice. Speak up. Tell what you know. The young men who had to suffer this pervert’s attentions all these decades deserve to have their pain acknowledged and vindicated.

UPDATE: A statement from the current Cardinal Archbishop of Newark. [2] Excerpt:

The Archdiocese of Newark has never received an accusation that Cardinal McCarrick abused a minor. In the past, there have been allegations that he engaged in sexual behavior with adults. This Archdiocese and the Diocese of Metuchen received three allegations of sexual misconduct with adults decades ago; two of these allegations resulted in settlements.

When did the archdiocese and the diocese receive these allegations? The wording is ambiguous. If settlements were made, when were they made, and why did church officials not disclose to the public that their former leader screwed around?

Why were so many bishops willing to run cover for Ted McCarrick all these years? Why?

187 Comments (Open | Close)

187 Comments To "Church: Cardinal McCarrick Is A Molester"

#1 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On June 21, 2018 @ 12:36 pm

As I recall, this sort of slander was used by the KGB Polish Intelligence against problematic clergymen, and the Pope assumed this was the same type of operation.

Most likely the KGB was using something that was true for its own ends, and then, finding it worked well, making it up in other cases where it was not true but a big lie would serve. And Cardinal Woytyla didn’t know which was which.

#2 Comment By ginger On June 21, 2018 @ 12:39 pm

“When a priest sexually abuses a girl or woman, why is it never characterized as “heterosexual abuse?”

Because everybody is too darn busy breathing a sigh of relief it was only a girl/woman who was being abused?

#3 Comment By Frank On June 21, 2018 @ 2:35 pm

“Then a personal friend of McCarrick’s — a closeted gay man, someone whose name you would know — contacted the news organization for which I was working on this story. The caller did so on McCarrick’s behalf, trying to get me pulled off the story. I won’t go into details, but the man who made the call conceded that McCarrick was guilty, but insisted that no laws had been broken, and therefore it wasn’t a big deal. My supervisor on the story, to his great credit, simply said to keep digging, but to keep him informed.”

Rod, can you explain why this interlude wasn’t enough to go public with the story?

[NFR: Because it was a private call to my editor, not an interview. — RD]

#4 Comment By Frank On June 21, 2018 @ 2:59 pm

Well, seems like this story was well corroborated and documented as early as 2009. Wonder why it has taken until now to break into mass media?

[3]

#5 Comment By Carolyn Disco On June 21, 2018 @ 3:32 pm

Bless you, Rod Dreher, for your commitment to the truth. I too have known of McCarrick’s record for many years. For those who doubt his guilt, read the legal settlement documents of his abuse of priests/seminarians at [4]

Richard Sipe is a former priest who became a clergy abuse expert who has “interviewed 12 men who alleged that McCarrick propositioned, harassed or had sex with them” per an AP report today.

Scroll down on his website to:
“On file are the unsealed “MEDIATION DOCUMENTATION FOR FR. G.” that involved McCarrick, the dioceses of Metuchen and Newark, NJ. (2006) A financial settlement was reached. The case was sent to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, but it has not yet responded. Documents include the history of McCarrick’s initial sexual gesture and approach to the victim then a seminarian, in the bishop’s Metuchen residence in 1986. Documentation includes hand written correspondence (letters and cards) from McCarrick postmarked between 1987 and 2005. Many of the letters are signed “Uncle Ted.” The names of other priests who were either seen having sex with McCarrick or witnessed McCarrick having sex with another priest are also included in the file. One of the priests is still in active ministry another left the ministry and was assisted by the church and McCarrick to re-educate for another profession. The names of other sexually active priests are also in the reports. Records of McCarrick’s activities with these priests are also included in medical evaluations and records all reviewed by Bishop Hughes of Metuchen already in 1995.
Excerpts from the legal Settlement Documents include firsthand accounts that are also in the Newark Archdiocese records of an incident on a trip with McCarrick, then Archbishop of Newark, New Jersey, with a seminarian and two young priests when they shared a room with two double beds, it reads:

McCarrick, wearing just underwear, got into bed with one of the priests: “Bishop McCarrick was sitting on the crotch of Fr. RC As I was watching TV with Fr BL [full names appear in the documents], bishop McCarrick was smiling and laughing and moving his hands all over Fr. RC’s body. Bishop McCarrick was touching Fr. C’s body, rubbing his hands from head to toe and having a good time, occasionally placing his hands underneath Fr. C’s underwear. [I was] feeling very uncomfortable while trying to focus on television, and Fr. B.L., started smiling. As I looked at the bed next to me, Bishop McCarrick was excitedly caressing the full body of Fr. R.C.

At that moment, I made eye contact [with] Bishop McCarrick. He smiled at me saying, “Don’t worry, you’re next.” At that moment, I felt the hand of Fr. B.L. rubbing my back and shoulders. I felt sick to my stomach and went under the covers and pretended to sleep.”

McCarrick continued to pursue the young man, sent him notes and telephoned him. Notes reveal that it was the custom the Archbishop McCarrick to call his protégés “nephew” and encouraged his entourage to call each other “cousin” and for them to call him “uncle Ted.”

On another occasion McCarrick summoned the young man to drive him from the Newark Cathedral to New York City. He took him to dinner; and after, rather than returning to Newark as anticipated McCarrick went to a one-room apartment that housed one bed and a recliner chair. McCarrick said that he would take the chair, but after showering he turned off the lights and clad in his underwear he climbed into bed with his guest. Here is the account from the documents:

“He put his arms around me and wrapped his legs around mine. Then He started to tell me what a nice young man I was and what a good priest I would make someday. He also told me about the hard work and stress he was facing in his new role as Archbishop of Newark. He told me how everyone knows him and how powerful he was. The Archbishop kept saying, “Pray for your poor uncle.”

All of a sudden, I felt paralyzed. I didn’t have my own car and there was nowhere to go. The Archbishop started to kiss me and move his hands and legs around me. I remained frozen, curled up like a ball. I felt his penis inside his underwear leaning against my buttocks as he was rubbing my legs up and down. His hands were moving up and down my chest and back, while tightening his legs around mine. I tried to scream but could not…I was paralyzed with fear. As he continued touching me, I felt more afraid. He even tried several times to force his hands under my shorts. He tried to roll me over so that he could get on top of me, but I resisted, I felt sick and disgusted and finally was able to jump out of bed.

I went into the bathroom where I vomited several times and started to cry. After twenty minutes in the bathroom, the Archbishop told me to come back to bed. Instead I went to the recliner and pretended to fall asleep.”

In a letter dated four days after this incident McCarrick wrote a note signed “Uncle Ted” that said in part: “I just wanted to say thanks for coming on Friday evening. I really enjoyed our visit. You’re a great kid and I know the Lord will continue to bless you…Your uncle has great spots to take you to!!!”

#6 Comment By Anne O’Nymous On June 21, 2018 @ 5:11 pm

As a (newly-converted, ill-informed, badly-catechised) traditionalist Catholic I’m — on balance — delighted to see all this made public. Not because there is anything here to celebrate. Quite the contrary — pain, degradation and (above all) sin never lead to good reasons to throw a party. The fallout from this isn’t going to be pretty. BUT ‘spring cleaning’ is long overdue, and the Lavender Mafia in particular may well begin to have its day of reckoning. It will — IF we, the scandalised faithful, refuse to be hoodwinked further or cowed back into silence — and aren’t out-maneouvred again by cunning sharp operators. For now, we should all pray an extra rosary for Rod Dreher, in addition to voicing our thanks.

Mr Dreher, please be assured of a place in my prayers.

Why, by the way, am I not revealing my name? Because (as an academic) I had better not be caught reading or commenting on this blog if I know what’s good for me. Then again, perhaps we do our souls too much harm by merely doing “what’s good for us”.

The most corrupt parts of the Church hierarchy, by the way, have nothing on the universities when it comes to this sort of complicity with abuses of authority and ugly sinning.

I’m trying to come up with a prudent means of blowing the whistle at my own (ancient, highly-regarded, impeccably “liberal”) institution. Not so much out of fear for my own reputation or career (though there IS that) — but because if I’m not canny about the ways in which I do it, then my efforts will have been in vain, and the cover-up will be even more vicious, long-lasting and disastrous (not to mention effective) than the scorched-earth revenge attack on me.

Or is it just effective planting of fear in my head that makes me think that whistle-blowing might lead to even further endangering of blameless souls?

From this point of view I can appreciate why silence, and even complicity, may have seemed prudent re. Dirty Uncle Ted: for whistle-blowing to be worth the effort and consequences, it has to have a visible positive effect. Dirty Uncle Ted might have been too cunning (and lucky) an adversary for an effective whistle-blowing strategy to have seemed wise….

#7 Comment By Anne On June 21, 2018 @ 5:34 pm

“…this sort of slander was used by the KGB Polish Intelligence…and the Pope assumed this was the same type of operation.”

That may have been true to a point, but it’s not as if the Pope had no recourse to CIA intel or his own Vatican sources. Maciel, for one, had been suspect from the beginning of his church career, having been kicked out of two seminaries (only to be ordained by an uncle) and investigated by the Vatican — and put on temporary probation — for a number of alleged abuses, including sodomy, as early as the 1950s. And yet JP2_took his side against all allegations, apparently impressed with Maciel’s Legionaries of Christ, a super-strict new religious order that required its members to vow they’d never criticize a superior, a rule Benedict XVI’s Vatican made them drop in 2008. Those who’ve written on the subject blame a handful of Vatican insiders for protecting Maciel, including secretary of state Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Pope himself and his personal secretary Monsignor Stanislaw Dziwicz, as well as American “enablers” such as law professor Mary Ann Glendon and Fr. Richard John Neuhaus. Willful blindness, therefore, seems the most plausible explanation to me. It’s said that even Benedict XVI, whose congregation investigated Maciel from 1997 until 2006, purposefully waited 4 long years until after JP2’s death to complete his work on the case and do what needed to be done. And Maciel’s was just one of how many cases that had been appealed to Rome over the years?

#8 Comment By sjay On June 21, 2018 @ 6:00 pm

The current frenzy of stories run with only anonymous sources is completely unethical and calls into question the motives and professionalism of everyone involved, from the reporters to the owners.

I’m assuming there’s a distinction between anonymous sources, those who don’t want their names to be published in the news story, and those who won’t go on the record, meaning that they would deny having told the reporter the story even under oath in the context of a defamation action. I think it’s ok to proceed with the former, but not the latter, as long as the media outlet never deceives its readers into thinking the case is stronger than it is.

#9 Comment By Richard S Genca On June 21, 2018 @ 6:00 pm

Most sex-ed classes in so-called Catholic schools are explicit instructions in anal and oral sodomy. The Catholic sex-ed school curriculum sets up students for molestation by pedophile priests who are the clergy most involved in promoting sex-ed. By the age of 10, if not sooner, the Catholic student is 90% ready for rape by priests. Thanks to the compulsory pornography of
classroom sex-ed, the 10 year-old Catholic student knows exactly how to sodomize, or be sodomized, from start to finish. The Catholic boy or girl can’t plead ignorance about the perversion which the pedophile priest is now asking him or her to perform. The victimizing priest will sneer in reply:”You already lost your innocence in Catholic sex-ed class!”

Apart from graphic sex education in Catholic classrooms since 1966, the priest-pedophile scandal could not have reached such a terrible extent. And still it continues as sex-ed instructors profile their students’ vulnerabilities and intimate issues for use by pedophile priest, as counselors and ”father-confessors” to the children they target for ”grooming”

#10 Comment By Mia On June 21, 2018 @ 6:47 pm

“I called the other, who gasped when I said it out loud, and who said, “If that were true, then I wouldn’t confirm it for the same reason Noah’s sons covered their father in his drunkenness.””

It’s this kind of mentality, that it’s somehow good to let people do evil and cover it up if they have the right social position, that needs to go. There are other verses in the Bible, like the story of Asa deposing his grandmother Maacah in 1 Kings 15:

[5]

The thing to note here is that Noah wasn’t doing anything evil, he just was caught in a bad moment, while Maacah was engaged in evil. Noah’s situation doesn’t even remotely parallel the immoral behavior detailed here, but Maacah’s does. We need to start building a Biblical theology that supports reporting and doing the right thing over silence in the face of evil, and it really actually isn’t as hard as you’d imagine if you know the Bible well.

#11 Comment By Mia On June 21, 2018 @ 8:31 pm

“Better for us all to think he was a naive saint (fool? who apparently never learned much from hearing confessions over the decades)…”

Wanna have a discussion about the ugliness surrounding the confessional, too, while we’re at it? Some really casual attitudes have in fact been held toward confession, and I know an archconservative Catholic layman who even wrote a letter to our local church complaining about how no one cared that people outside the confessional could hear what was being said within it. That’s just for starters. I probably shouldn’t say more since they’re fighting some new rule in Australia maybe where they are being pushed to violate the confessional. It’s sad how little most of church teaching and practice means to too many of our leaders.

#12 Comment By Mia On June 21, 2018 @ 9:09 pm

“Our Lady in 1611 to Sr. Torres described this so well.”

Yes? We need a link then:

[6]

So there were visions given to a Conceptionist nun in Quito, Ecuador in 1594 through 1634 named Sister Mariana de Jesus Torres, and the visions are known as Our Lady of Good Success. Never heard of that one, but it’s really interesting and very relevant to current events.

#13 Comment By Brian On June 22, 2018 @ 1:38 am

Interesting piece, but why did you wait to publish? You had many private conversations and say nobody would permit their name to be used. Would none of them be quoted as an unnamed source? It can be appropriate to use unnamed sources if providing enough context as to the credibility of the source and the reason the source was unwilling or unable to be named.

As to the story itself, sadly, it’s all too believable, based on what we know of the Roman Catholic church at this point.

[NFR: Because, as I’ve said, you can’t publish a story like that based only on hearsay. If people aren’t willing to put their names to it, and/or provide documents, it’s too risky — morally and legally — to publish. Notice that nobody has yet gone public with their names, accusing Uncle Ted. The fact that the Catholic Church has publicly removed him from ministry because it believes him to be guilty of sexually abusing a minor lowers the bar somewhat. It doesn’t make McCarrick *guilty* of these things, but it makes the many, many allegations more credible. — RD]

#14 Comment By David J. White On June 22, 2018 @ 4:57 am

Wow, Richard S Genca; you certainly have a fevered imagination!

Most sex-ed classes in so-called Catholic schools are explicit instructions in anal and oral sodomy. The Catholic sex-ed school curriculum sets up students for molestation by pedophile priests who are the clergy most involved in promoting sex-ed. By the age of 10, if not sooner, the Catholic student is 90% ready for rape by priests. Thanks to the compulsory pornography of classroom sex-ed, the 10 year-old Catholic student knows exactly how to sodomize, or be sodomized, from start to finish.

and

Apart from graphic sex education in Catholic classrooms since 1966

I gues my Catholic grade school in 1974 somehow missed the memo.

#15 Comment By David J. White On June 22, 2018 @ 5:23 am

Care to explain what not being able to marry has to do with abusing seminarians and young priests? I was married and divorced before I entered the Church, and cannot marry. Despite this, it’s never occurred to me once to have sex with men. I don’t think I’m atypical. In fact, I’m sure I’m not.

I understand what you’re saying, but I think you’re missing the point. It’s not that being unable ever to marry makes a man want to have sex with men; it’s that the existence of a large, organized, celibate, somewhat secretive all-male “boys’ club” risks attracting men who have those proclivities in the first place, because they know it will give them both opportunity and cover. And I imagine that there are some sincere men with homosexual inclinations who think that the discipline of clerical life will help them control their urges.

In other words, celibacy itself doesn’t turn men into homosexuals, let alone predators. But a celibate male institution seems to attract men with those inclinations.

Clerical celibacy is a church discipline, not a doctrine. Technically it could be changed with the stroke of a pen. Of course, it would take a while for things to change on the ground, since the whole economic structure of Catholic parishes and dioceses is based on celibate clergy without families to support.

#16 Comment By David J. White On June 22, 2018 @ 5:38 am

If the allegations of sexual misconduct with adults is true, since they happened with adults (not children), it’s probably assumed that an adult would have the physical ability to say “NO!” & also leave the situation.

Of course that’s the same attitude that helped shield people like Harvey Weinstein for so long, right? “She was an adult; she could have left anytime; no one made her be there.”

That doesn’t work with the Harvey Weinsteins of the world anymore; and thankfully so. Hopefully it will now stop working with the McCarricks of the world as well.

Gays want equality? Having homosexual assault treated as seriously as heterosexual assault has to be part of that. Equality is not just about getting a wedding cake.

#17 Comment By JonF On June 22, 2018 @ 6:41 am

Re: Apart from graphic sex education in Catholic classrooms since 1966, the priest-pedophile scandal could not have reached such a terrible extent.

Setting aside considerable skepticism about your claims about Catholic sex ed, this sort of trouble goes back a long ways– a VERY long ways. During the Middle Ages there were troubles with pederasty among the clergy, and vows of celibacy were very often honored in the breech.

#18 Comment By ginger On June 22, 2018 @ 7:14 am

“As I recall, this sort of slander was used by the KGB Polish Intelligence against problematic clergymen, and the Pope assumed this was the same type of operation.”

Does anybody really believe Pope St. John Paul II was so poor at logic that he believed:

-Some priests were slandered with accusations of sexual abuse by KGB agents
-Therefore, all sexual abuse allegations against priests are slander

Also, given everything we now know about corruption within the Church, it would be shocking if every bit of “slander” against priests by the KGB was false. Some of those priests probably WERE guilty of sexual depravity, and the KGB leveraged that knowledge to their advantage.

#19 Comment By ginger On June 22, 2018 @ 7:18 am

“Wanna have a discussion about the ugliness surrounding the confessional, too, while we’re at it?”

Don’t get me started. After having my eyes opened to how molesters have used the confessional as a grooming tool for children (and a way to screw them up even more after they have been molested), I have never felt the same way about allowing my children to walk into the confessional.

#20 Comment By Elijah On June 22, 2018 @ 7:19 am

“On your assumptions, though, nothing could ever be reported except what those in authority wished us to know. Anything and everything that investigative reporters rely on might be faked. Sources can lie even more easily than documents can be forged.”

(a) this is clearly not true, but I do not assume, for example, that certain charges against Trump presented in the “dossier” are true simply because they’re in writing and (b) I can fake documents these days very very easily.

There’s more to discovering truth than making declarations.

#21 Comment By Seminarista On June 22, 2018 @ 7:19 am

Mr. Dreher, is there any prelate whom you know to be guilty of sexual misconduct whose authentic guilt still needs to come out?

[NFR: Yes. There is a prelate that I *believe* to be guilty, because people who have personal knowledge of it have told me. I hope and pray that they will come forward, if not to me, then to some other journalist, so that the truth can be known. — RD]

#22 Comment By Ms On June 22, 2018 @ 7:34 am

Richard Genca, I have to respond to your comment. I went to Cath school – after 1966 – and your description of sex Ed in Cath schools in no way resembles the way we were taught. Sex Ed was accurate in its information, and taught virtues of chastity and respect. It also engendered awe. I presume you are referring to some unfortunate schooling you went through. I am sorry for you – your description is not accurate for all of us.

#23 Comment By ROB On June 22, 2018 @ 9:06 am

Richard S. Genca please provide a source for the allegations that sex Ed classes in Catholic primary schools are explicit instructions in anal and oral sodomy and that instructors “profile” their students’ ,as young as ten, for seducuction by priests posing as “father confessors”. This allegation is an outright lie and I am surprised to see it published on this website.

#24 Comment By Gerard J Ahrens On June 22, 2018 @ 9:25 am

This SHOULD give massive new impetus to exposing the sexual abuse hypocrisy in the Church because it falls so clearly into the MeToo syndrome of forced compliance in exchange for career advancement. BUT IT WON’T BE COVERED. See the documentary The Keepers for reasons why it will be suppressed.

#25 Comment By JonF On June 22, 2018 @ 11:00 am

Re: It’s not that being unable ever to marry makes a man want to have sex with men

Well, being truly isolated from women does create sexual urges in men toward other men: there’s plenty of examples of that. However that’s not what’s happening among priests and bishops. They are not isolated like that. Some of the stricter monastics may be (it happens in Orthodoxy occasionally where monks follow older rules and some exclude females from even setting foot on monastery property) but regular clergy have plenty of access to women. FWIW my take is that it’s easier to impose oneself on the underage and on subordinates than to strike up an affair with an adult woman– or man for that matter.

#26 Comment By mrscracker On June 22, 2018 @ 12:19 pm

john says:

Query. When a priest sexually abuses a girl or woman, why is it never characterized as “heterosexual abuse?”
**************
I’m not sure but I did know a priest who was accused of that, falsely I think.

We used to have a very handsome young priest who was practically stalked by a couple lonely women in the parish. It was embarrassing to watch & he of course should have handled things differently, but I guess he was lonely, too & he eventually became romantically involved with one of them.

When he tried to end the relationship, the woman threatened to commit suicide & claimed he’d abused her. Our priest was immediately sent off to a psychiatric clinic in Canada & never returned to the parish.

Anything’s possible, but when you attend a very small parish & know everyone you kind of get a handle on folks.

I know there are clergy who prey on parishoners but I think the reverse may be true also.

#27 Comment By Jefferson Smith On June 22, 2018 @ 1:35 pm

Elijah:

I do not assume, for example, that certain charges against Trump presented in the “dossier” are true simply because they’re in writing….

Who on earth believes they’re true “simply because” they’re in writing? Even the dossier’s own author doesn’t claim that.

….and (b) I can fake documents these days very very easily.

Yeah, up to a point. What you can’t fake is all the other knowledge and evidence that would tend to authenticate the document (or not) — like, who provided it, what motives they might have had for doing so, whether the sources on which it claims to rely would be people or organizations in a position to know the things in question, whether the document squares with or can be checked against witness testimony or other known facts that aren’t in dispute, and whether the conclusions it points to seem likely to be true or not given everything else that’s already known. And then, of course, there’s the other factor I mentioned: Once the document’s existence is made public, does whomever it causes to look bad deny it and suggest it must be a forgery? Or do they tacitly confirm it?

You could “very easily” fake a document that suggested that as a Catholic bishop in Argentina back in the 1950s, I was molesting the seminarians in my diocese. What you couldn’t do is rewrite history to make me (a) Catholic, (b) a bishop, (c) someone who’s ever been to Argentina, and (d) alive in the 1950s. So if you went public with those charges and got some journalist to publish them based on your forgery, I would be quick to point these things out and make you all look like liars and idiots. Which is why any remotely competent journalist (or police detective, or prosecutor) would check out those kinds of facts first. That might not be enough to expose an extremely clever forgery — but extremely clever forgeries would not be very easy to do at all, so it’s going to screen out most.

#28 Comment By Alma On June 22, 2018 @ 9:17 pm

Richard S. Genca, I am sorry you did not receive the true catholic education given to us by men and women who chose to dedicate their lives to educating children. I am 51 years old, and more often than not, I am recalling theology lessons from the sisters about situations in life. I was too young to understand them then, and they went over my head, but now I am “oh, that is what she meant!” Those men and women were teaching us about God, math and life skills to be good happy human beings. Few are sick and broken, many more served God with love and respect and I pray to God they know how appreciated they are. No child/person deserves to fall in the hands of a monster, and those sick criminals need to be held accountable. Let’s just be clear that they are the exemption to an amazing group of men and women who have done great things for children and society.

#29 Comment By Heath On June 22, 2018 @ 9:45 pm

There is a massive homosexual element within the catholic clergy, just as there is with coaches on sporting teams, teachers, scout leaders etc. Where there is young men, there you will attract that element. I believe that McCarrick and others like him were protected by other clergy because they too have their own history of sexual misconduct and or gay relations. The church can reform, and be more transparent, but it’s not going to take away human nature. And many of these priests don’t see this type of behavior as a crime, so much as a human failing, particularly when we aren’t talking about children, but young men. Accordingly, they turn a blind eye. Is married priests a solution? Yes, in some ways, but the Episcopal church has a massive problem with child sexual abuse, and their priests are married. So it won’t solve it fully. What’s clear is that the cover up and the making allowances isn’t going to stop it. This matter needs to be studied. Debated. And opened up. Maybe then a solution can be found.

#30 Comment By David J. White On June 23, 2018 @ 9:15 pm

I know there are clergy who prey on parishoners but I think the reverse may be true also.

The woman who is pursuing one of the priests is such a familiar figure in many Catholic parishes as to be almost a stock character.

#31 Comment By Ron Vasek On June 24, 2018 @ 11:10 pm

I believe this story. I was abused by a priest, Roger Grundhaus, when I was 16. I am 63.I did not dare tell anyone because I was groomed and the priest was a ” big brother” to me. As I was about to enter the Diaconate program I told my bishop about the abuse. I had yet to even tell my wife of 40 years about the abuse.
Instead of encouraging me to do what the Diocese policy stated, written by my abuser, my bishop chewed me out about bringing up an allegation against such an important priest. My son was ordained by this bishop Micheal Heppner, in 2010.
I was forced to remain silent and told never to tell anyone about this, not even my wife, it was my cross to carry.
In 2015 I was called to the bishops residence and asked to recant my statement which was never reported or put into the priests file. At that meeting I told the bishop I would not sign the statement and asked what would happen if I did not sign the statement he presented to me. I was told,”If the scandal about Grundhaus get out, how could I ordain you, who would want you, where could I put you. And besides, It would be very difficult for your son.
I knew what that meant. I signed the paper knowing I had to protect my son.
I did not get ordained, it was scheduled for June 10, 2017. I could not be obedient to a bishop who was not interested in truth.
I know what cover up is all about and the intimidation a bishop has over his priests. Many are afraid to stand up to their bishops.
I also know there is a very serious problem with homosexuality in dioceses. I know first hand how this works and it is much more serious than anyone knows.
I have since sued the bishop and the diocese for this abuse and cover up and am hoping to get the truth about this junk in the open.
Thank you for shedding light on this.
I don’t know if you can put this information here but there is a website that has my story on it.
“truthronvasekstory.com”
I am not afraid to put my name on this story as it is now my mission to expose the men for who they are.

#32 Comment By DaninMD On June 25, 2018 @ 8:15 am

“I never wrote the story about McCarrick, because I could not get anybody to go on the record. That spring, I fielded more than a few calls from Catholic priests from the New Jersey area who had direct personal knowledge of McCarrick’s sexual derring-do with seminarians. They would phone me, tell me what they knew, and then beg me to “do something”! I would tell them that I could do nothing until and unless they provided documents, and/or were willing to put their name to public accusations.”

That’s a lame excuse. If you have many priests saying it, you can simply report THAT.

I.e. ‘numerous priests have told me that Theodore McCarrick took sexual advantage of seminarians.’ That would have been simple and powerful truth.

It is quite common for journalists to report things while protecting their sources. Courageous journalists (i.e. the kind who report things *before* they are generally known) are willing to stand at the point of pressure, reporting bravely while protecting their sources.

Even in this recent reporting, there is no outing of a single new name. Is this so pervasive that the Catholic Church would be gutted if a complete housecleaning occurred?

[NFR: Oh, shut up. You don’t know what you are talking about. There is this little thing called libel law. No reputable publication would allow itself to be put at risk of a libel suit if not a single credible source is willing to go on the record, or produce documents that back up the allegation. Plus, there is the matter of professional ethics. What if McCarrick had been innocent? You really want journalists to report that somebody is a sex abuser based only on hearsay? — RD]

#33 Comment By Mark Crawford On June 25, 2018 @ 5:23 pm

I as well as my younger brother were physically and sexually abused by our parish priest. For several years this man was at times brutal but always sought and had control over my life in many ways.

When I was 20 (1983) I summed up the courage to tell the auxiliary bishop of the Newark Archdiocese of my abuse and that I suspected the same may be happening to my younger brother. He did not treat me kindly and was quite irritated.

I was instructed to speak with yet another priest (then vicar of priests in Newark) I was told was a psychologist, (later found out he was not) so I did just that. My abuser wasn’t even removed from our parish…when he did leave years later, it was to accept a promotion. That’s right, he was appointed Archbishop McCarrick’s personal secretary.

Some years later after my suspisions were confirmed that he in fact abused my younger brother as well, I demanded a meeting with the Archbishop. After being ignored for about a year, I made it clear, meet with me or I will deal with the press. He called me and asked to set up a meeting.

15 Years after I first reported my abuse to the Archdiocese I demanded to tell my story again since it was clear, I had been largely ignored. I met with Archbishop McCarrick (and newly minted Bishop Bootkowski of Metuchen, former vicar of Newark) in 1997. McCarrick made many promises, none of which were kept. He said that this was the first time meeting with a clergy abuse victim and how I helped him understand the suffering a victim experiences. He told me my abuser would not have access to children and at that time I believed him. I asked to help educate other clergy/seminarians and he said that would happen. Further I explained how furious I was at the fact I was repeatedly asked for a confidentiality agreement and that I would NEVER agree to such. A week after our meeting I was again asked for confidentiality.

My abuser was again, without my knowledge, returned to ministry and about 2 years later I saw a picture of him in the Archdiocesan newspaper with the Archbishop McCarrick surrounded by children at Christmas at a local hospital. I was sickened and infuriated.

Yes I admit I was very ignorant at the time expecting things would change, but no longer.

My abuser was only reported to authorities in 2002 when the NJ attorney Generals office requested the files of known child abusing clergy. Many years later I saw a single cover page which totally understated the extensive sexual and physical abuse we suffered. My abuser was simply allowed to retire, still considered a priest today.

#34 Comment By pbnelson On June 26, 2018 @ 6:28 pm

Mr. Vasek, and Mr. Crawford. Thank you for telling your story. Bless you. You are in my prayers.

#35 Comment By Theodore M Seeber On June 26, 2018 @ 10:44 pm

Intel’s CEO just resigned last week for “consensual” relations with an underling.

This sort of behavior goes far beyond the Church, and it’s frowned upon even in secular circumstances.

Why the heck wasn’t this guy removed years ago?

#36 Comment By Frank On June 29, 2018 @ 5:47 pm

Rod, respectfully I think your response to Brian could have been a little less dismissive. If you were told by a person or persons with PERSONAL knowledge of sexual misconduct by McCarrick, that is NOT hearsay. Now your repeating it is hearsay, but that is intrinsic to reporting. Nevertheless, as a legal matter, I don’t see how reporting such information could ever constitute “knowledge of falsity” or “reckless disregard for the truth,” just because the source wants to remain anonymous. No way. What’s more, not to put too fine a point on it, but what really has changed now from your reporting perspective? None of your sources (I presume) has changed his mind, which suggests that all that changed is that the Church issued some statements, which McCarrick sort of denied. Why does that allow you to come forward now as a “libel” matter?
I really appreciate your information, but I suspect you would have been on solid ground reporting your information many years ago.

#37 Comment By Frank On June 30, 2018 @ 12:36 pm

Correction. It was your response to DaninMD that I was referring to as “dismisive.”