Being Catholic Now. Q1 a2

Vatican II stalls

Whosoever knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by God through Jesus Christ would refuse…to remain in Her could not be saved. (Vatican II Lumen Gentium 14)

On the one hand: She is the Mother of the People of God. She is the eternal Israel. She gathers where Satan has scattered.

You need the gift of divine faith to see this. But not blind faith.

After all, where do cultures intersect, enrich each other, and bear fruit in genuinely peaceful human interaction? In the Church. Where do people come together, help each other, and form a real family that transcends blood and tribe? In the local parish church.

What institution has preserved the facts about Jesus Christ? What Christian community can, with perfect truthfulness, claim Him for Her founder?

And what religion has a single leader who can truly unite the world?

…On the anniversary of the appearance of the Lady in white to the children in Fatima–May 13, 2001–I gave my life to the holy Roman Catholic Church. With total faith and trust, I, along with my seminarian brothers, promised to serve Her all our lives long. I still love Her like I did then. No, I love Her a hundred times more.

After we made our promises, then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, duly appointed Archbishop of Washington, ordained us transitional deacons. That was our “wedding day.” The beginning of long, happy, fruitful lives as clergymen, in the bosom of Mother Church, dedicated to helping our neighbors get to heaven.

On the other hand: McCarrick should have been in jail that day.

Last week, our dear bishop of Richmond gave us a pastoral letter. In it, he wrote the following:

“I support, and promise my full co-operation, with any independent, lay-managed, authoritative investigation into the scandal of Archbishop Theodore E. McCarrick.” (page 4)

Problem is: The day before Bishop Knestout gave us this letter, the president of the US Conference of Catholic bishops met with the pope. According to Cardinal DiNardo’s own statements prior to that meeting, he had traveled to Rome to ask the Holy Father to authorize an investigation into ‘the scandal of Theodore McCarrick.’

But Pope Francis authorized no such investigation. After the meeting in Rome, none of the participants so much as mentioned any investigation.

Ergo: We will never know how and why a dangerous criminal became a Cardinal. And flashed his red hither and yon for seventeen heady years. Making a mockery of pretty much all of us–all of us east-coast-USA Catholics aged 35-70. No one will ever be held accountable for this utterly crushing betrayal. The pope appears to have no intention whatsoever of holding anyone accountable for it.

And none of us can reasonably believe that the very bishops who flat-footedly stood by, as McCarrick took all the limelight for himself during the Scandal of 2002–thereby making a pathetic mockery of all of them— None of us can reasonably believe that any of them will stand up like men and vindicate their own honor. By personally punching McCarrick in the face.

In fact, none of us can reasonably believe that the course of justice will move forward in the McCarrick case at all.

Maybe sometime next year we will learn that the pope quietly laicized McCarrick. And that, supposedly, will satisfy justice. When the good faith of thousands of American Catholics has been cruelly mocked.

…By the way, I wish McCarrick nothing but grace from God. I bear the man no ill will. I hope he gets to heaven. I have no doubt that he has more right to go to heaven than I do.

But when you minister as a priest and then as a bishop, and when you represent the holy and Apostolic See as a Cardinal, your crimes touch the faith of all the souls around you.

How will any of us find peace? Unless those crimes get reckoned with, publicly, by a competent, impartial, honest judge. Which would certainly embarrass all of McC’s cynical accomplices. But isn’t such crushing embarrassment precisely what they deserve?

Anyway, you know we have reached an abysmal low point when the one person who makes sense is: Theodore McCarrick’s lawyer. Last week the New York Times quoted the lawyer saying, “the accusations are serious and McCarrick looks forward to invoking his right to due process at the right time.”

Amen to: The accusations are serious. And Amen to: Due process.

So the question:

What kind of institution is this? This institution necessary for the salvation of the human race. With which no one could safely choose to associate him- or herself–at least not anyone who prizes honesty and integrity, and who has ever heard of Theodore McCarrick.

…Just to repeat: The “Scandal” is not (and has never been) that so-and-so sexually abused so-and-so. Painful as it is to face, such things happen. And they will continue to happen, until the Last Day.

The scandal is: So-and-so abused so-and-so, and so-and-so, who was supposed to deal with it, to help everyone move on, by reckoning with the crimes publicly, did… [crickets].

In the case of Theodore McCarrick, The Scandal continues, unabated.


Another Open Letter to His Holiness

Your Holiness,

I do not trust you because you have misinterpreted what the moment demanded of you, from Day One.

Your predecessors gave us the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Out here in the parishes, we did not languish in doubt regarding the teachings of the Church. We did not hanker for verbose Roman Synods. To the contrary, on the day you took office, our parishes were humming with the business of communicating the teachings of the Church, contained in the Catechism.

We did not need a “new pastoral paradigm” to govern the relations between priests and their people. What we needed–it is now painfully obvious–was greater discipline in the ranks of bishops, and in the Vatican.

In the US, we have suffered a crippling scandal. All of it is attributable to the negligence of bishops, including yourself. The documents that scandalized people in Pennsylvania–all of them had been in the custody of the bishops there for twenty years or more. And bishops, including you, knew about Theodore McCarrick. Only you bishops had the authority to do anything about him.

Holy Father, you have spoken over and over again about the primacy of mercy. You misinterpreted what the moment demanded. For over a generation, no one has had any doubt that the Church knows how to act with mercy. The obvious problem we have is: the Church has forgotten how to act with severity. How can you not see that your former-Cardinal-Priest Theodore McCarrick has–in his brazen recklessness–exposed this colossal weakness?

What did the moment demand, when the first of McCarrick’s brother bishops learned of his predations? Mercy? Hardly. What did the moment demand, when you learned of it? Mercy? No. The moment demanded the just application of strict rules.

Do you not see how desperately the Church needs a severe father right now? A fearless and exacting enforcer of rules. A man whom sinners behold, and tremble.

Holy Father, by the year 2013, we parish priests–at least in the US–had made good headway in restoring order to parochial life. You have sat on the Chair of Peter for five and a-half years since then, and there is less discipline, less accountability, and less openness in the Vatican than when you arrived. There is less discipline, less accountability, and less openness in the Vatican–not to mention all the diocesan chanceries I know–than there is in the typical American parish.

You have gravely misjudged what the times demanded of you, Holy Father.


Your Son in Christ, Father Mark White


Increasing Sense of Helplessness

greengrass united 93

Paul Greengrass made the 9/11 movie–United 93.

Everything in the little worlds of FAA Headquarters, and Newark airport, and the regional air-control centers in New England and New York–everything began normal, a lovely late-summer morning. Then chaos, and a sense of utter helplessness, builds little by little. For two agonizing hours.

Yesterday, in holy Mother Church, the sense of utter helplessness built a little more.

Beautiful West Virginia had a bishop from Philadelphia. He used to run the Basilica of the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, and I knew him then. He and I had a run-in with then-Cardinal McCarrick over a homily I gave at a friend’s first Mass.

Your humble servant celebrated Mass in Bishop Bransfield’s diocese just last Wednesday, the anniversary of Mother Teresa’s death, while I was on a little vacation in Berkeley Springs, WV, with my dear mother and brother.

We prayed special for Bishop Bransfield at that Mass, because his 75th birthday drew nigh. Time for a transition, since bishops must resign at that age.

Yesterday things got weird. The Pope accepted Bishop Bransfield’s resignation, effective immediately. The Archbishop of our ecclesiastical province left Baltimore to go to West Virginia. To investigate Bishop Bransfield’s evils. Without any public explanation of what those evils are.

Weirder still: The president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops is the Archbishop of Galveston-Houston, in Texas–Daniel Cardinal DiNardo.

Eleven years ago, Texas dispensed with any statute of limitations for the criminal prosecution of sexual abuse of minors.

Cardinal DiNardo’s right-hand man for Hispanic ministry is Father Manuel LaRosa-Lopez. Turns out that he has just been arrested by the police. For alleged crimes that occurred about twenty years ago.

He was arrested while Cardinal DiNardo was in Rome to meet with the pope to plan out how to deal with the crisis.

pope dinardo gomez

Paul Greengrass could not make a movie more excruciating than this. And the worst part is the utter meltdown of effective communication.

Archbishop Lori, of Baltimore, issued a statement, touching on “the troubling allegations against Bishop Bransfield.” What allegations? Over a decade ago, an avowed pederast priest accused Bransfield of sexually abusing a minor. It was a pure-hearsay allegation. The minor himself (now an adult) testified that Bransfield had never done anything wrong.

While Cardinal DiNardo exchanged jokes with the pope, his Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston issued a defensive statement of self-contradictory bureaucratic gobbledegook to explain the Father LaRosa-Lopez affair.

Paragraph one narrates a course of events in which the principle of zero tolerance for sex abuse of minors was manifestly not followed. Then the concluding paragraph of the statement insists that the diocese simply will not tolerate sexual abuse. And the entire upshot of the statement is: If there are any problems here, it is the fault of the victims, their families, and Child Protective Services. Not our fault. At all. Not us.

…Meanwhile, the pope announced a synod of all the heads of the national bishops conferences, to deal with the crisis. In February.

What will happen? The same thing that has happened over and over again for years and years.

The pope will tell the bishops conferences that they absolutely positively have to deal with this problem. The bishops conferences will say, there’s nothing we can do. Only the Vatican can deal with this. Then everyone will congratulate each other and go home.

How to be Catholic Now. Q1 a1

Greenwich Village twin towers


On the one hand, the unity of the apostolic Church consists of the allegiance of every baptized person to the successor of St. Peter.

On the other hand, human decency demands: Whenever someone in authority exploits someone vulnerable, that crime must be brought to light and punished justly, to the satisfaction of the victim.

These look like the Twin Towers of September 11, 2018, for any Catholic not living as a hermit.

On the one hand, many good Catholics rightly observe that calling the pope a bad pope can hardly do any good. He is the only pope we have. It’s not for us to judge his badness or goodness; that judgment belongs to God alone. We all have our own personal spiritual and moral lives to work on. We fail in humility, and we damage the unity of the Church, when we do not give our prelates the benefit of the doubt.

On the other hand, many good Catholics, not to mention the non-Catholics paying attention, hear what Pope Francis has said–and not said–these past few weeks, and they stop short. They reasonably conclude: This man intends to use his untouchable status as the one and only pope to trick his audience. Trick us into doubting our incandescent outrage over a fact that stands undisputed, and painfully in front of our faces. Namely: someone pulled the curtain back to show us the inner-workings of our hierarchy, and we see a pile of stinking garbage.

Who can honestly abandon either fidelity to the successor of St. Peter or Christian solidarity with the victims of abuse?

Will these Twin Towers come crashing down in a colossal mess of lethally toxic debris?

I say No. I say: Jesus Christ. The heavenly Father. The grace of the sacraments. Faith, hope, and charity. St. Augustine. St. Francis. St. Thomas. St. John Vianney. St. Therese. The Catechism. The People of God. Parish churches all over the world with saints on their knees at this very moment.

I say: Your Holiness, I’m not going anywhere. I wish that you would. And I will keep wishing it until you own up to every bit of the truth that you haven’t owned up to yet, and then admit that it’s too much to expect us to continue to believe in your leadership.

But I’m not going anywhere. Maybe this is like taking a knee, a la Colin Kaepernick. But not during the national anthem at a football game. Rather during the prayer for the pope during the canon of the Mass.

Not that I will literally take a knee at that point, since the rubrics call for taking a knee at other particular times.

And I do pray for the pope with love, and pray that he will do the right thing, acknowledging that I certainly do not have a lock on knowing what that right thing is. But seems to me: Replace all the Cardinals by randomly selecting from among the world’s parish priests, then step down.

I don’t have the hair to be Colin Kaepernick. And I’m not as talented or good-looking. I’m just trying to be Catholic right now. Without making myself sick to my stomach when I think about the difference between what this past summer could have been, and what it actually has been.

Transparent and Unfathomable

Be opened! The man’s ears, his lips. “He spoke plainly.” The deaf-mute now became a witness, a vessel for the Word of God, a pipe to make music to the praise of God’s glorious grace. [Spanish]


Opened, like the ears and lips of Christ Himself. Through the prophet, the Lord had praised His heavenly Father: You have opened my ear, and I did not refuse, did not turn away.

In Luke’s gospel, we read about the time when the Lord Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and praised the Father, ‘Lord of heaven and earth, you have revealed Yourself to the childlike!’

We know that Jesus taught His doctrine openly. During His Passion, when the chief priests interrogated Him about what He had taught, the Lord could say with perfect honesty: You can ask the people who heard Me teach. I have not secrets, nothing to hide. Ask them.

So, indeed: If “transparency” is a virtue of a good leader, we can hardly imagine anyone more “transparent” than Jesus Christ Himself. No deceit was ever found in Him. On Mount Tabor, He went so far as to reveal the divine light, shining through Him, to His chosen Apostles. That light of perfect and complete truth—that light shone through the body of this man, born in Bethlehem and raised in Nazareth.

Then, on the cross, the ultimate opening occurred: The soldier thrust a lance into His side, opening His Heart. Blood and water flowed out, the fountainhead of eternal life. The openness of Christ is the openness of God. God opening Himself to us. It is literally impossible to imagine any more truly wonderful openness.

But, here’s the thing. Yes, the Messiah, our Lord, is altogether pure, honest–a vessel of the Light of Truth that penetrates all darkness. But: Don’t we also say that His Heart contains a hidden abyss of goodness, unfathomable depths of love, a mystery that no eye can see nor tongue proclaim?

Let me quote St. Francis de Sales on this:

Behold him, this divine love of the beloved, how he stands behind the wall of his humanity, making himself to be seen through the wounds of his body and the opening of his side, as by windows, and as by a lattice through which he looks out on us…

Our Savior’s Heart, as upon his royal throne, beholds by the cleft of his pierced side all the hearts of the sons of men: for this Heart being the King of hearts keeps his eyes ever fixed upon hearts. But as those that look through a lattice see others clearly, and are but half-seen themselves, so the divine love of this Heart, or rather this Heart of divine love, continually sees our hearts clearly and regards them with the eyes of his love, but we do not see Him. We only half see Him. (Treatise on the Love of God, Book V, chapter 11)

So: Although our Lord outdoes the transparency of the most-transparent people we know, we still have to walk by obscure faith in unseen things.

God sees all. And on the last day, we will see everything, in God’s light. But, in the meantime, we stumble along, trying to hold fast to the truth, knowing that we do not know everything.

Ok. Our Church floats along in the middle of a colossal controversy right now. At the highest level of authority, charges of negligence remain unanswered.

Is it all about who knew what and when? Or is it about who knows how to handle things like this better?

Hopefully it is about knowing right from wrong. The Lord always helps us to do that, to know right from wrong. He may confront us with difficult moral choices. But He never leaves us without an honest path forward, one we can take with a clear conscience.

Pope Francis Easter candleThe duty we all have is to follow that path, the path of an honest conscience, of a “transparent person”–to follow that path into an uncertain future.

In my book, our Holy Father has not responded in an honest manner to the controversy. He has not made himself transparent regarding the facts about Theodore McCarrick, facts which I know a lot about. And it looks to me like the pope has fallen into dishonesty regarding other cases involving prelates and sex abuse. That said, I certainly don’t know everything.

I wish Pope Francis would step aside, trusting God to provide a new shepherd who could actually tackle this crisis honestly and give us a fresh start.

But it’s the Pope’s decision to make. We all have to make our decisions. As honestly, as forthrightly, as “transparently” as we can. Knowing full well that only God knows everything.

The Corrupt Conspiracy (with Compendium)

Papal Vespa scooter

We live in a seedy town. The mayor, the judge, and the sheriff sit on a dusty porch. They while away their slow, empty days. They swap bad jokes. They never give a thought to the town’s future. Because they are corrupt time-servers…

When a Christian clergyman sexually abuses a minor, or any vulnerable person, it effects everyone.

Theodore McCarrick owed something to the people of the Archdiocese of New York, his hometown, where he became a priest. He owed the same thing to the people of the dioceses of Metuchen NJ, Newark NJ, and Washington DC–all of which he led as a bishop. He owed us an honest life. He owed us the loving service of a diligent and zealous priest.

We didn’t get that, apparently. On June 20, the Archdioceses of New York and Washington DC announced that Pope Francis had suspended McCarrick from any priestly duties, because a man (we learned in the New York Times that his name is Mike) had accused McCarrick of sexually abusing him, while he was still a boy.

Now, subsequent to such an announcement, about such a prominent churchman: Our Holy Father, and the incumbent bishops of the affected dioceses, owe something to Mike. They owe something to any other victims. They owe something to all of us whose lives McCarrick has touched. They owe us an open trial of Theodore McCarrick.


Our souls face grave peril here. Our former father in God stands accused of grievous wrongs against trusting, innocent victims–victims who wandered into danger precisely because they shared our faith and our trust in the Church’s clergy.

We need to know the facts. We need to hear the testimony of the witnesses. We need to hear the verdict and the sentence. We need to see justice done. Our relationship with this Church–and therefore, the salvation of our souls–depends upon our having confidence that justice has been served in the case of Theodore McCarrick.

Now, I mentioned trusting, innocent victims, in the plural, because…

1. On July 19, a man named James lodged a public accusation against McCarrick, in the pages of the New York Times. James accuses McCarrick of corrupting him sexually while he was still a boy, and then continuing to abuse him well into adulthood.

2. The Archdioceses’ announcement of June 20 referred opaquely to other victims. We have since learned–no thanks to any Church official–that the other victims include seminarians and young priests. McCarrick apparently corrupted them while they were aspiring, under his care, to become priests. McCarrick thereby gravely endangered their souls, and the souls of all those whose lives they would touch.

So the incumbent pope, with the incumbent bishops of the affected dioceses owe us an open trial, a trial in which all these charges get a public airing. McCarrick deserves his chance to answer. Then a judge must deliver justice. If any of the victims prefer to remain anonymous during such a trial, let them. We can still have a public trial, with their testimony submitted anonymously.

The public need for such a trial has been obvious since the end of July. But neither the pope, nor any of the incumbent bishops, have communicated with us about this. In any way. Neither the pope, nor any of the incumbent bishops, have communicated to the public any facts whatsoever regarding the McCarrick case.

Quite the contrary. We still have no way of knowing if any Church official has so much as spoken with James. Everything we know about McCarrick’s abuse of seminarians has come from them speaking out through the media, or through Archbishop Carlo Viganò’s testimony, or through reactions to that testimony.

wuerl miter

McCarrick disappeared on June 20. I myself happen to know where he is. He is in a comfortable house–where I lived for a couple months in 2002, with James Cardinal Hickey, who was then retired and quite ill. But no Church official has ever said anything about when we will see McCarrick publicly face the charges against him.

Pope Francis wrote us a letter on August 20. He never addressed a single fact of the McCarrick case. None of the bishops of the affected dioceses have ever spoken about seeing justice done in the McCarrick case at all.

Our peace, and our relationship with the Church, is riding on this. But, the truth is, none of us have any reason to believe that any of the prelates involved have given this matter a moment’s real thought. We have no reason to think that anything further will happen, when it comes to a public reckoning of McCarrick’s crimes. None of the incumbents in office show the slightest understanding of the duty they have to justice, and to our souls.

A clergyman must act with zeal for souls. A police officer acts out of zeal for public safety and peace. A health inspector acts out of zeal for the public’s bodily well-being. A judge acts out of zeal for the law. A clergyman must act with zeal for souls. He must fulfill his duty because he fears his own damnation and the damnation of those for whom he is responsible. A clergyman must long with all his heart to reach heaven with his flock intact.

A clergyman without this zeal for souls is, in a word, corrupt. He occupies a place of honor; he receives deference; he enjoys notoriety, since the Lord has set him at the head of the household. But he is an empty shell. He just sits there and talks to no purpose. He not only doesn’t do his duty–he forgets what his duty is.

A corrupt clergyman is like a do-nothing mayor or police chief or judge. But with one crucial difference: Instead of endangering public peace or prosperity, the corrupt pope or bishop endangers immortal souls.

Here we are, at the end of this awful summer, facing these facts:

1. We, the people of this region of the Church, deserve to see McCarrick tried for his crimes.

And 2. The pope and the bishops have no intention whatsoever of arranging and executing such a trial. Because the pope and bishops are corrupt, do-nothing, blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-ing pharisees.

So this entire region of the Church–and perhaps many other regions, too, for all we know–will remain a decaying, dangerous town. A backwater run by lazy good old boys swapping pointless stories on a dusty porch.

May God help us.

Compendium of My Posts So Far on the McCarrick Case and the PA Grand-Jury Report

Open Letter to the Holy Father September 1 [NB. I have removed this post from my weblog at the request of Bishop Knestout]

Caso Romanones August 31

Should the Pope Resign? August 29

Believing Viganò August 28

Pontifical Prevarication August 27

Late Night with Viganò August 26

The Church’s Center of Gravity August 24

We Think You’re Incompetent August 22

More about the PA Report August 22

Me and Jake Tapper Hate the Bishops August 20

The Good PA Catholics August 19

Victims Crucifix + Wuerl Fail, Part II August 17

PA Grand Jury Report: Not Bad, But Good August 16

Wuerl Fail August 14

The Teaching that Convicts August 12

Checchio Fail August 10

Our Vichy Regime August 9

Tottering Church August 8

Priesthood Ex Opere Operato August 5

Burbidge Fail August 4

Open Letter to Theodore McCarrick August 1

St. Alphonsus, Pray for Newark and Washington August 1

Going Backwards July 31

James’ Amanuensis July 30

James the Man of the Hour July 30

No Longer His Eminence July 28

New Scandal, Worse than the First July 26

Scandal of 2002 Painfully Revisited June 29

The Spider Web June 20

More Re: Holy Father’s Answers

pope press conference

Our Holy Father talked about more than just Theodore McCarrick at his press conference on Sunday.

1. He also answered a question about a conversation he had with a prominent abuse survivor and victims advocate. She has since written to him, asking him to clarify his answer.

2. And there’s more. During the press conference, Pope Francis spoke at length about a highly celebrated court case in Spain, the “Caso Romanones.”

A young man had written to him–Pope Francis–in 2014, accusing a group of priests of sexual abuse.

At the press conference Sunday, the Holy Father narrated the subsequent series of events from what struck me as a strange point-of-view. His account includes clear factual inaccuracies. As Pope Francis told the story, the priests had suffered a terrible calumny, which the press had exacerbated. But, in the end, the priests got vindicated in court. And the whole thing goes to show you that sometimes sex-abuse allegations against priests aren’t true.*

The pope had met the priests in private audience last month and asked for their forgiveness.

Problem is this:

Yes, the one priest who actually went to trial was found not guilty. The court originally insisted that the accuser had to pay court costs. The priests were all restored to the ministry. But then the Supreme Court of Spain annulled the imposition of court costs. And declared that the lower court had not determined that the accuser’s story was false.

Caso Romanones

The accuser is known as “Daniel.” What had happened is that the prosecutor dropped the charges at the eleventh hour of the case. Apparently because the criminal case required proving WARNING anal penetration. Which Daniel’s testimony had not established.

Also, the other priests Daniel accused had never even faced trial, because of the statute of limitations.

Earlier this month, after he learned that the pope had apologized to the priests, Daniel wrote a letter pointing out that the canonical case against these priests should not be closed. “The civil court has not reached the conclusion that sexual abuse did not occur.”

Now, I do not claim to understand the Caso Romanones completely. Daniel has a lawyer, and that lawyer may be a charlatan, for all I know. I read Spanish ok, and I have perused a lot of news articles. I think I know as much about this case as any English-language journalist–based on the internet searches I have done. But I can hardly claim to know that the priests are actually guilty.

What I can say is this: The civil court did not determine that abuses, for which the priests should be held to account, did not happen at all. Daniel appears to have given somewhat incoherent testimony. On the other hand, forensic experts had studied the witnesses at the trial, and they had concluded that Daniel is a lot more believable than the priest. For that reason, there was widespread surprise when the prosecution dropped the case at the eleventh hour.

It is a fact that the Supreme Court of Spain declared in its judgment (after the accused priests were re-instated to ministry by the Pope and Archbishop of Granada) that the lower court had not judged Daniel’s testimony to be false.

* In my limited personal experience, sex abuse allegations leveled by non-homosexual men against other men are almost always true.

Should the Pope Resign?


Pope Francis waving

Allow me to narrate the life and times of Theodore McCarrick’s abuses, as we now know them. Along the way, we will encounter plenty of red herrings–that is, facts the require attention, but which do not help us determine what the pope should do. Just stick with me to the end, please.

Ordained a priest in 1958, McCarrick baptized a baby boy named James. In the early 1970’s, when James was eleven, McCarrick began to abuse him sexually. Also, McCarrick fondled the genitals of a high-schooler named Mike, in the sacristy of St. Patrick’s cathedral, and menaced the boy in the bathroom. All of this remained a secret until this summer.

While a bishop and archbishop in the 80’s and 90’s, McCarrick manipulated seminarians and young priests into sleeping with him. Meanwhile, he continued to abuse James sexually.

In the year 2000, a seminary professor accused McCarrick of seducing seminarians into immoral acts. That accusation reached the Vatican. Pope John Paul II made McCarrick Archbishop of Washington, and created him a Cardinal, anyway.

In 2004, McCarrick’s former dioceses paid out a secret cash settlement to a seminarian/young priest that McCarrick had slept with. Although the business involved only adults, paying a settlement recognizes that McCarrick had abused his victim. (If it were all free and consensual, there would be no question of paying damages.)

A file in the Vatican contained information about this settlement, as well as other accusations against McCarrick. John Paul II did nothing.

JPII died in 2005. Benedict succeeded him. In 2006, Donald Wuerl became Archbishop of Washington, replacing McCarrick. McCarrick was now “retired,” but nonetheless very active–a prominent churchman.

In 2007, another settlement in New Jersey: McCarrick’s file in the Vatican got thicker, with more clear evidence that he was a sexual predator.

In 2009 or 2010, Pope Benedict apparently took some action to discipline McCarrick, but with no discernible effect on the then-Cardinal’s life.

In 2013, Pope Benedict resigned. Francis succeeded him. In June of that year, Archbishop Carlo Viganò told Pope Francis about the file on McCarrick and warned the pope about the danger McCarrick posed.

Then, in 2017 or 2018, Mike finally had a forum in the Archdiocese of New York. He spoke about what McCarrick had done to him. In June of 2018, Pope Francis took action, suspending McCarrick from public ministry. Then, in July, James spoke out. McCarrick resigned from the College of Cardinals.

Pope Francis enters St Patricks
Pope kisses the crucifix upon entering St. Patrick’s Cathedral in 2015

The story has heroes: Mike. James. The people who listened to them and helped them try to bring McCarrick to some kind of justice. The seminarians and young priests who tried to blow the whistle on McCarrick back in 2004 and 2006.

We still do not know anywhere near everything we need to know, about any of this. As mentioned above, it appears that a great deal of information is contained in a file on McCarrick in the office of the Congregation of Bishops in the Vatican.

Why has that file not been made available to us? I mean those of us with a legitimate interest in this case–which, because McCarrick had such prominence in the Church here, certainly includes all the Catholics on the eastern seaboard?

Maybe one or more of the victims insisted on secrecy? Maybe that is why some or all of the file remains secret? If so, fair enough. But the Holy Father, or his spokesman, could say so, if that’s the reason.

This story has no real heroes among the clergy. But we do have to thank Archbishop Viganò for providing a great, great deal of the information narrated above. His testimony has filled out the picture enormously.

When Pope Francis learned about McCarrick’s file, in June of 2013, the then-Cardinal was 83 years old. He no longer held a particular care of souls.

On the other hand, he continued to enjoy prominence in the Church. He was not homebound. Many of us saw McCarrick at the Cathedral of the Sacred Heart in Richmond on January 12 of this year (when we joyfully witnessed our bishop take possession of his throne.)

Also, as of June 2013: No one had accused McCarrick of abusing minors (at least as far as we know). McCarrick had, in fact, abused minors–but Pope Francis likely did not know about that abuse.

What the pope did know: McCarrick had repeatedly used his authority as a bishop to gratify his sexual perversities. leaving a trail of abuse and shattered lives in his wake. The pope had all of that information.

Let’s remember: One man has the responsibility for disciplining Cardinals. One. The pope.

You have a file containing substantial evidence that this 83-year-old Cardinal is a predator priest. What do you do?

pope press conference

Our Holy Father did nothing. At least nothing that we know of. And it appears that he would have continued to do nothing, had not Mike and James spoken out.

Should Pope Francis resign because of this?

Consider what has happened after the publication of the secret clergy files in Pennsylvania. Consider the damage to our Church. Damage that could easily have been prevented. Almost all the cases were decades old. If the bishops had only examined their own files, and had taken it upon themselves to see that justice got done somehow, then the grand jury would have had nothing to report.

Now, consider this: The catastrophic damage that the Church has suffered this summer–all of it ultimately comes from two places. The chanceries of the dioceses of Pennsylvania. And the Vatican–the place where Theodore McCarrick’s file is.

If the Pope had disciplined McCarrick in 2013, when he knew that McCarrick was a sexual predator, where would we be today?

Not in some kind of La La Land, to be sure; this pilgrim life always involves suffering and tears. But the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church would be in a far, far, far better place than we are now. Unimaginably better.

If the incumbents of those episcopal sees had acted uprightly with the contents of their own files. Yes, the crimes narrated in those files occurred under the watches of your predecessors. But only you, incumbents of those sees, had access to all this evidence. No one else had access. You had to deal with it. It was your duty.

Who am I talking to? The incumbents of the sees of Pittsburgh, Erie, Greensburg, Harrisburg, Scranton, Allentown, and Rome.

Should Pope Francis resign? Dare I use his words from the plane?

Draw your own conclusions.

Believing Viganò about McCarrick

McCarrick sofa

Journalist Daniel Politi has proposed that Archbishop Viganò intentionally released his testimony yesterday, on the day when Pope Francis spoke about sex-abuse in Ireland, in order to embarrass the pope. It was “timed to cause maximum damage to the pontiff.” Others have expressed a similar opinion: malice governed Viganò’s choice of release date.

But a published interview with Archbishop Viganò contradicts that interpretation. Italian journalist Aldo Valli spoke with Viganò: Ha deciso per domenica 26 agosto perché il papa, di ritorno da Dublino, avrà modo di replicare rispondendo alle domande dei giornalisti in aereo. He decided to publish on August 26 because the pope, at the press conference on the plane returning from Dublin, would have the opportunity to respond.

The Archdiocese of Washington released a statement today, responding to Archbishop Viganò’s testimony. Viganò had called Donald Cardinal Wuerl a shameless liar. Cardinal Wuerl knew, Viganò insists, that Pope Benedict XVI had imposed a sentence upon then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick in 2009 or 2010. McCarrick was not to live a public life, but rather retire to prayer and penance.

The Archdiocese of Washington states:

Cardinal Wuerl has categorically denied that any of this information was communicated to him. Archbishop Viganò at no time provided Cardinal Wuerl any information about an alleged document from Pope Benedict XVI with directives of any sort from Rome regarding Archbishop McCarrick. [emphasis mine]

Thing is, you can read and re-read Viganò’s dossier, and never find any reference to any document regarding the sentence imposed on McCarrick by Pope Benedict. Viganò alleges no document. Viganò’s account of the imposition of the sentence involves only spoken conversations. Cardinal Wuerl has categorically denied something that Archbishop Viganò never alleged in the first place.

Archbishop Viganò recounts how an Indictment Memorandum was sent by his predecessor as U.S. Nuncio, Pietro Sambi, to the Vatican in June of 2006. It included the testimony of a former priest of the diocese of Metuchen, NJ (who also ministered in Charlotte, NC). The former priest indicted McCarrick for immoral sexual acts with himself and other priests and seminarians.

Viganò’s account here has a mysterious little hole. He recalls that Sambi’s memo to the Vatican warned that the former priest might go public with his information if the Holy See did not act swiftly. According to Viganò’s account, the Holy See did not act swiftly. Pope Benedict did not punish McCarrick until 2009 or 2010. Viganò refers to this as an “incredible delay.” So what about the former-priest going public as he threatened?

The hole can be filled with a quick internet search. Earlier this summer journalist Matt Abbott wrote about how he tried to make a public stink about McCarrick in 2006, and one former-seminarian agreed to go on the record at the time.

In 2008, the late Richard Sipe published his “Open Letter to Benedict XVI,” to which Archbishop Viganò refers in his account. Sipe claimed to have documents proving McCarrick’s abuse of seminarians. Then in 2010, Sipe published quotations from these documents–the 2006 confidential settlement between the diocese of Metuchen and a McCarrick victim–in an essay called “The Cardinal McCarrick Syndrome.”

In other words, Viganò’s narrative checks out here. There is a record of the information being made public after the threat.

Viganò makes broadside attacks against many churchmen in the latter part of his testimony, with no evidence offered to support his attacks. His dossier would certainly be more credible if he had left those indictments out.

But none of that touches the central question: Is his narrative about the Holy See’s dealings with Cardinal McCarrick true?

The most-prevalent criticism of Viganò’s veracity runs along these lines:

Viganò claims that Benedict XVI imposed a penalty on McCarrick, namely that he retire from public life and pray and do penance. But McCarrick did not retire from public life. Therefore, Viganò’s story about the Holy See’s dealings with McCarrick is not true.

The conclusion does not follow from the premises. The fact is: penalties imposed by ecclesiastical authority have only one coercive mechanism: conscience. It is actually 100% believable that McCarrick flouted Pope Benedict’s discipline. And since only the most-senior prelates would have known about the penalty, no churchmen could, or would, do anything to hinder McCarrick’s flouting of it.

At a transtion of bishops, the outgoing bishop would customarily hold the bishop’s crozier until the moment comes for the Nuncio to hand it to the new bishop. There is a story about Pietro Sambi trying to keep McCarrick from holding the crozier at the installation of Donald Wuerl as Archbishop of Washington, in the summer of 2006. This would have been before Pope Benedict imposed a punishment, but after Sambi first learned of McCarrick’s sexual abuse of seminarians–as we now know, thanks to Archbishop Viganò.

McCarrick held the crozier anyway. Sambi apparently did not choose to wrestle with another clergyman in the sacristy. The same choice would have faced any other churchman who knew about McCarrick’s penalty and saw him flouting it.

When the National Catholic Register published Viganò’s dossier, the accompanying article included a remarkable statement: The Register has independently confirmed that the allegations against McCarrick were certainly known to Benedict, and the Pope Emeritus remembers instructing Cardinal Bertone to impose measures but cannot recall their exact nature.

The reporter is Edward Pentin. Someone other than Viganò told him that Pope Benedict remembers the affair and confirms what Viganò has written.

My impression is that Archbishop Viganò has a fairly obvious agenda, and he belongs to a faction that has distrusted Pope Francis since 2013.

My mom will swear that right before I had to go back to the church to hear confessions, on the afternoon of March 13, 2013 (Eastern Daylight time), when we sat watching tv in my living room, with the new pope waving at the crowd from the loggia of St. Peter’s, I said: “He is not up to this. This man has no joy. He is not up to this.”

So I guess I belong to that faction, too.

But I cannot see how any fair-minded reader could regard Viganò’s testimony as fundamentally suspect. It is enormously illuminating. He has given us a gift.

Pope Francis told the journalists on the papal plane to investigate Viganò’s claims themselves. One of them had just done that, by asking the pope to confirm or deny Viganò’s account of the conversation Viganò says the two of them had in June of 2013.

So the Pope urged those journalists to do something. And simultaneously refused to help them do it.

Viganò insisted in his dossier that a former nunciature official would confirm Viganò’s account of a stormy meeting between Sambi and McCarrick–presumably the meeting at which Sambi told McCarrick that Pope Benedict had ordered him to retire from public life and beg God’s forgiveness in private. The official has confirmed Viganò’s account, as Viganò said he would.

But this does not really prove anything. Neither Viganò, nor this official, even claim to know for sure what Sambi and McCarrick were discussing when they apparently yelled at each other. We just know the fact that they yelled.

Will Pope Benedict speak? Will he confirm that Pentin correctly referred to him as a corroborating source for Viganò’s account? (Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re could speak, also, or Cardinal Tarsiso Bertone–and make the same confirmation.)

In ‘Church World,’ in the Catholic Media Shadow House, everyone seems to think of such a thing as some kind of almost-unthinkable taboo. In the real world where the rest of us live, it would seem to be the one obvious, necessary thing that has to happen next.

Or, even better: Let us hear from McCarrick himself. I know the man pretty well. And I can guarantee that if he had a microphone in front of him and a good-looking reporter asked him to comment on Viganò’s dossier, the ex-Cardinal would damn himself and a lot of other people (who apparently deserve to be damned) within three minutes.


My Hero, His Mother, and Pontifical Prevarication

pope press conference

You listened to her, O Lord, and did not despise her tears, which moistened the earth, whenever she prayed. (Antiphon for today’s Memorial of St. Monica)

St. Monica. She prayed for her son… Augustine. That he would embrace Catholicism.

She prayed. And he did. He embraced our religion, big time. The Catechism quotes Monica’s son more than any other theologian. Reading St. Augustine’s sermons has given me endless inspiration and insight. There is no one whom I admire more.

What separated Augustine from the hypocrites? Maybe his slavish humility before the sacred text of the Scriptures? Maybe his total personal devotion to Jesus his Savior? Maybe his tireless readiness to seek the truth? This made him the kind of pastor who could answer questions without prevarication.

Let’s take one Augustine quote from the Catechism.

To live well is nothing other than to love God with all one’s heart, with all one’s soul and with all one’s efforts.

From this it comes about that love is kept whole and uncorrupted (through temperance). No misfortune can disturb it (and this is fortitude). It obeys only God (and this is justice), and is careful in discerning things, so as not to be surprised by deceit or trickery (and this is prudence). [CCC 1809]

There’s enough wisdom in that one paragraph to organize your whole life on.

To live well is to love God.

Loving God keeps love pure and temperate.

Loving God makes love strong, even in the face of great difficulties.

Loving God keeps love honest and just, since the Lord sits on His throne to judge everyone, with all truth.

And loving God keeps love prudent, since a brave, pure, and honest love can see through nonsense and root itself in facts, in reality.

The best reaction I have heard so far to the publication of the famous Archbishop Viganó dossier: “I am shocked above all to learn that an Italian official spent time working during the second half of August.”

augustine-bookSeriously, though. We find ourselves at a terrible impasse. Our Holy Father had a chance yesterday to deny the truth of what the Archbishop alleges. On the papal plane heading home from Ireland, a reporter asked the pope directly, “Is it true that you knew about McCarrick?”

But Pope Francis would not say, “No. It is not true. Had I known I would have acted. Acted on behalf of those victimized by McCarrick’s predations. I’m only sorry I found out about it so late, and it breaks my heart to think about all the people that this man has hurt.”

The pope could have said all this. If it were true. But he did not. He said, “You must draw your own conclusions.”

To repeat: A reporter had asked the pope about a private conversation between himself and an Archbishop. The Archbishop had written: “I told Pope Francis about McCarrick in June of 2013.” So, Holy Father, is that true? Answer: “Draw your own conclusions.”

You might have wondered what I meant above, when I used the word ‘prevarication.’ Our Holy Father’s answer to a simple Yes or No question, a question that only he can answer: “Draw your own conclusions.”

That’s what we call prevarication, my dear ones.