[ad_1]
“Until 2017, no one, not Cardinal Parolin, not Cardinal Ouellet, not Archbishop Becciu, not Archbishop Viganò, French Pope any documentation related to the charges against McCarrick, including anonymous letters dating back to the early 1990s. ” It is the most important passage in the dossier about the former Washington cardinal, Theodore Edgar McCarrick, carried out in two years by the Secretary of State at the will of Bergoglio. From the report, whose publication, decided by the Pope, marks a great step in transparency in pedophilia cases and that it is no coincidence that it is disclosed after the US elections, it follows that until 2017 there is no evidence of the guilt of the former archbishop of the American capital. As soon as Francis was certain that the American cardinal had committed sexual abuse of minors, he immediately removed the purple in 2018, the only case so far in his pontificate, and then, the following year, reduced it to secular status. “Pope Francis – the report always says – had only heard that there had been accusations and rumors related to a immoral conduct with adults, which occurred prior to McCarrick’s appointment as Washington. Believing that the accusations had already been examined and dismissed by John paul ii, although aware that McCarrick was in business during the pontificate of Benedict XVIFrancisco did not see the need to change the line adopted in previous years. “
The record, therefore, denies the assertions of the former nuncio to the US, Monsignor Carlo Maria Viganò, great supporter of Donald trump, who claimed to have informed Bergoglio, a few months after the election, of the serious accusations made against McCarrick but without the Pope acting immediately. That is why Viganò asked Francesco to resign. “In June 2017, – read the report – the Archdiocese of New York learned of McCarrick’s first known allegation of sexual abuse of a victim under the age of 18 in the early 1970s. Shortly after the allegation was deemed credible, Pope Francis called for McCarrick’s resignation of the College of Cardinals. After a criminal administrative process carried out by Congregation for the Doctrine of the FaithMcCarrick was found guilty of acts contrary to the sixth commandment of the Decalogue for minors and adults, for which he was discharged from the clerical state.
How was it possible that for many decades, and more than three pontificates, the grave crimes committed by McCarrick were never proven by the Vatican? And that in 2000 Wojtyla decided to promote it Archbishop of the American Capital and the following year name it cardinal? The report answers these questions very clearly by going back to the genesis of the two important decisions that the Polish Pontiff made. “The documentation – read the file – highlights that Pope Juan Pablo II He personally made the decision to appoint McCarrick and he did so after receiving the opinion of several trusted advisers on both sides of the Atlantic. McCarrick had been appointed auxiliary bishop of New York by Saint Paul VI in 1977 and in 1981 Saint John Paul II had transferred him to the head of the diocese of Metuchen and then promoted him, in 1986, to Archbishop of Newark.
When, in 2000, the opportunity to entrust him with the Archdiocese of Washington, the then Cardinal Archbishop of New York, was considered, John Joseph O’Connor, wrote a letter to the Pope with the already serious accusations that were being made against the future cardinal. It has been noted, the report says, “McCarrick’s sexual activity with another priestFurthermore, “a series of anonymous letters, sent to the United States Conference of Bishops, the Apostolic Nuncio, and various United States cardinals in 1992 and 1993, accused McCarrick of pedophilia with her grandchildren‘”And again:” McCarrick was known to have bed shared with young adult men at the bishop’s residence in Metuchen and Newark ”and“ McCarrick was known to have shared a bed with adult seminarians in a beach house on the New Jersey shore ”. The seriousness of this information caused the Pope to temporarily desist from proceeding with the appointment, a decision also supported by the then apostolic nuncio to the United States, the archbishop. Gabriel Montalvo, and by the then prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re.
But the pope changed his mind after McCarrick wrote a letter to Wojtyla’s secretary, the current cardinal, on August 6, 2000. Stanislaw Dziwisz, evidently informed of his nomination process in Washington and the accusations that had blocked him. In it, McCarrick states: “In the seventy years of my life, I have never had sex with anyone, man or woman, young or old, clergyman or layman, I have neither abused another person nor treated them with disrespect ”. Wojtyla had previously requested a supplemental investigation into the allegations, and the four New Jersey bishops interviewed “confirmed that McCarrick had shared a bed with young men, but did not indicate with certainty that McCarrick had had sexual misconductThe dossier states that “what is now known, thanks to the investigations carried out for the preparation of the report, is that three of the four American bishops provided the Holy See with inaccurate and, furthermore, incomplete information about McCarrick’s sexual conduct. with young adults. “. This information probably seems inaccurate Influenced the conclusions of the advisers of John Paul II and, consequently, of John Paul II himself ”. Furthermore, “Pope John Paul II had known McCarrick for some time, having first met him in the mid-1970s. McCarrick interacted with him frequently, both in Rome and on trips abroad, including the Pope’s visit. to Newark in 1995 and on the occasion of his annual stays in Rome for the Papal Foundation. McCarrick’s direct relationship with John Paul II probably had an impact on the Pope’s decision-making process. “
An important chapter, which should not be underestimated, is instead what happened under the pontificate of Ratzinger. “At the beginning of Benedict XVI’s pontificate, the report reads, the information received by the Holy See about McCarrick’s conduct was generally similar to that of John Paul II at the time of his appointment in Washington. Shortly after his election in April 2005, on the recommendation of the Apostolic Nuncio and the Congregation for Bishops, Pope Benedict XVI extended McCarrick’s mandate in Washington for two years, a period that was considered a success. ” But then, on the basis of new accusations, “the Holy See drastically changed its orientation and urgently sought a new archbishop for the See of Washington, requesting McCarrick to resign ‘spontaneously’ of the office after Easter 2006. “The report also shows that during this period Monsignor Viganò, as delegate for the pontifical representations, had communicated the information received from the nunciature to the superiors of the Secretary of State, underlining his seriousness. When he raised the alarm, he also realized that he faced no proven accusations. The then Cardinal Secretary of State, Tarcisio Bertone, addressed the issue directly with Benedict XVI. In that context, in the absence of underage victims, and given that it was a cardinal who has now resigned from office, it was decided not to open a formal canonical process to investigate McCarrick. An election that today sounds like a serious mistake.
Twitter: @FrancescoGrana
[ad_2]
