[ad_1]
VATICAN CITT There is no irrefutable evidence, but a repeated series of falsehood, reluctance, omissions, understatements, curial errors and inertias that have allowed a sexual predator, a maniac who for decades abused his power to rape young men men and seminarians, including minors, to become Archbishop of Washington (in 2000) and Cardinal (2001), one of the prominent men of the Church until his retirement in 2006 and beyond. Theodore McCarrick today has 90 years, Pope Francis forced him to resign from the College of Cardinals on July 27, 2018 and resigned from the clerical state, that is, expelled, on February 16, 2019. And today, after two years of investigation, the Holy See publishes the Report McCarrick, highly anticipated in America. , 461 pages based on documentation from the archives of the Holy See, the nunciature in Washington, the US dioceses involved, and more than ninety interviews with witnesses and victims. The invitation that I allow myself to address to anyone who seeks answers to read the entire document and not be deceived in finding the truth in one part and not in another, writes the Cardinal Secretary of State, Pietro Parolin. Certainly the report tells a very different story than that of the dossier of Monsignor Carlo Maria Vigan, the former nuncio to the United States with the smell of schism and supporter of conspiracy theories (it says that the Pope is on the side of the Enemy and prepares the advent of ‘Antichrist, presented the US elections as a fight between the children of Light and the children of darkness, now convinced of the fraud against Trump and writes: Covid and Biden are two holograms, two artificial creations) that in August 2018 arrived to ask the resignation of Francis for the McCarrick case.
The denunciation in 2017 and the canonical process
In the Report prepared by the Secretariat of State, it is said that the Holy See made decisions based on partial and incomplete information (starting with those that reached John Paul II) and it was not until 2017 that detailed complaints of child abuse reached the Vatican: a that point opened the canonical process that ended with the two successive decisions of Francis, McCarrick expelled from the College of Cardinals and later defeated. On the other hand, it was true that a number of cardinals and the nunciature had arrived in Washington since the 1990s. letters that were not taken into consideration because they did not provide names and circumstances and because they were anonymous. And this is the first mistake: it is understandable that, on July 16 of this year, the new Vademecum on Abuses of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith invited us not to automatically throw away anonymous reports, the anonymity of the complainant you should not automatically make this notice false.
The accusations before 2000
John Paul II appointed McCarrick Bishop of Metuchen (1981) and later Archbishop of Newark (1986). He was recognized as a hard worker and an effective fundraiser. The Report also says that his donations over the years, including at the Vatican, have not influenced decisions about him. None of the people consulted at the time of the appointment process had given negative indications of their moral conduct. Same thing when Wojtyla visited Newark in ’95. The turning point in the whole affair was the appointment in Washington in late 2000. At that time, against McCarrick, there were four types of charges. The first: a priest from the Diocese of Metuchen, named in the Priest Report1, said that he noticed McCarrick’s sexual activity with another priest, who was the only non-anonymous person who reported but who was not considered unreliable because he himself had abused previously of two teenagers. The second: the series of anonymous letters came in ’92 and ’93 accusing McCarrick of pedophilia with his “grandchildren.” Third: McCarrick was known to have shared a bed with young adult men at the bishop’s residence in Metuchen and Newark. The fourth, finally: McCarrick was known to have shared a bed with adult seminarians in beach house on the New Jersey shore.
Cardinal O’Connor’s letter, but Wojtyla changes his mind
Among several positive and authoritative opinions in the United States, stands out in contrast the letter that the New York Cardinal O’Connor wrote to the nuncio on October 28, 1999, summarizing the accusations against McCarrick that were transmitted to John Paul II. warning that it would be a mistake to appoint him to a new position. The information led to the conclusion that it would be unwise to move him from Newark to even more prestigious places, such as Chicago (1997), New York (1999-2000) and, initially, Washington. John Paul II asked the nuncio to the United States Gabriel Montalvo to verify the validity of the accusations. However, between August and September 2000, Wojtyla changed his mind, until McCarrick was appointed Archbishop of Washington in November 2000. Perch?
The reluctance of the American bishops and the McCarrick letter
At the request of John Paul II, from May to June 2000, the nuncio to the United States Gabriel Montalvo addressed four bishops from New Jersey in writing. Surprisingly, the bishops’ responses confirmed that McCarrick had shared a bed with young men, but they did not indicate with certainty that he had engaged in sexual misconduct. Three of the four bishops provided the Holy See inaccurate and incomplete information Wojtyla’s collaborators and the Pope In any case, Wojtyla, who also knew McCarrick since 1976, initially accepted the proposal of the nuncio and then prefect of bishops, Giovanni Battista Re, to abandon the candidacy in Washington. However, to change the situation, a letter that McCarrick himself wrote in his own hand on August 6, 2000 and delivered to Wojtyla’s secretary, Stanisław Dziwisz: says he is innocent and swears that he has never had sexual relations with any person, man or woman, young or old, clergyman or layman. John Paul II is convinced that they are only malicious rumors, he tells Secretary of State Angelo Sodano to include Mc Carrick among the candidates and then names him. Among other things, the report notes that John Paul II’s past experience in Poland, related to the use of false accusations against bishops to undermine the role of the Church, may have affected his inclination to give credence to denials. . After all, McCarrick had a direct relationship with Wojtyla since the 1970s.
The decisions of Benedict XVI
Five years later, in 2005, the accusations resurfaceMcCarrick has reached retirement age and the new Pope Benedict XVI, who has just been elected, had renewed his mandate in Washington for another two years (on the recommendation of the nuncio and the congregation of bishops), asks at the end of the year the cardinal. give up spontaneously. The Cardinal Secretary of State, Tarcisio Bertone, presents the question to Benedict. In 2006 McCarrick left Washington and retired. Here also Monsignor Vigan, who works at the Secretary of State and suggests a canonical process to determine the truth of the accusations. The Report says that the superiors, Bertone and the deputy Sandri, shared the concerns and discussed them with Benedetto. The Executive Summary of the Report reads: A number of factors appear to have influenced the fact that Pope Benedict XVI did not initiate a formal canonical process: there were no credible allegations of child abuse; McCarrick again testified under his “bishop’s oath” that the accusations were false; complaints of misconduct with adults referred to events that occurred in the 1980s; and there was no indication of any recent misconduct. Ultimately, it was decided to appeal to McCarrick’s ecclesial conscience and spirit and instruct him to keep a low profile and minimize travel. Cardinal Re, prefect of bishops, in 2006 verbally instructed the nuncio to convey the directions to McCarrick, in 2008 the directions were put in writing. Recommendations, not sanctions: McCarrick continued to travel throughout the United States and abroad. Towards the end of Benedict XVI’s pontificate, another complaint came from a priest (Priest 3), who informed Monsignor Vigan, who had meanwhile become nuncio in New York, that he had had sexual relations with McCarrick. Vigan wrote to Cardinal Ouellet, the new prefect of bishops, who instructed him to take certain steps, including conducting an investigation with specific diocesan officials and with priest 3, to determine whether the allegations were credible. The Report never explicitly refutes Vigan’s dossier, but here it adds a significant note: Monsignor Vigan did not take these steps and, consequently, never put himself in a position to determine the credibility of Priest 3.
The Pontificate of Francis
In the year of Francis’ election, 2013, Mc Carrick is in his eighties and does not participate in the conclave. Before recalling the canonical process and the sanctions against it decided by Francis as of 2017, the Report responds implicitly to Vigan’s accusations against Bergoglio. No one provides the new Pope with documentation on the accusations against McCarrick, neither the anonymous letters from the 1990s nor the Prete1 and Prete3 accusations. The Report states that no document supports the account of Vigan, who said he spoke with the Pope in June and October 2013, the evidence for what he said is the subject of widespread dispute. Francesco had heard that there were rumors and accusations about one immoral conduct with adults of the cardinal. And so, believing that the accusations had already been examined and rejected by John Paul II, aware that McCarrick was in business during the pontificate of Benedict XVI, Francis did not see the need to change the line adopted in previous years. Finally, we come to June 2017: The Archdiocese of New York learned of the first accusation of sexual abuse of one victim under 18 manufactured by Mc Carrick in the early 1970s. At that time, Francis called for McCarrick’s resignation from the College of Cardinals, ordered the canonical process and finally, after sentencing, the revelry.
What the Church has learned
In a letter accompanying the publication of the report, Cardinal Pietro Parolin explains how the many things that have not worked in the last decades They have founded some reforms decided by the Pope in the last two years: from the abolition of papal secrecy to the indication not to automatically rule out anonymous complaints. But he points out that, in the end, it is always about the righteousness of the people: reading the document will come off that all procedures, including the appointment of bishops, depend on the commitment and honesty of the people concerned. No procedure, even the most advanced, error-free, because it involves the consciences and decisions of men and women.
November 10, 2020 (change November 10, 2020 | 14:27)
© REPRODUCTION RESERVED
[ad_2]
