If ‘everybody knew’ about Cardinal McCarrick, the corruption runs deep
Now at last the truth about Cardinal McCarrick’s misconduct has become public knowledge. If my email traffic is any indication, many more stories will soon emerge. But Rod Dreher drives right to the central point in his follow-up column, entitled “Cardinal McCarrick: Everybody Knew.”
There’s a bit of exaggeration in that headline, because not “everybody” knew about the cardinal’s homosexual approaches to seminarians. The ordinary people in the pews didn’t know. But those seminarians knew, and the word spread across the clerical grapevine.
Now at last we know, too, that complaints had been lodged against the cardinal. These complaints, we are told, did not involve minors—and that’s all we are told about the complaints, apart from the fact that they were settled. But in light of those complaints, and in light of the many stories involving seminarians, it would be naïve to suggest that the cardinal has now been brought to disgrace because of a single, isolated incident. The seminarians may have been of legal age, but they were not a bishop’s equals. His position gave McCarrick the opportunity to recruit young men and to silence those who rejected his advances, and he abused a sacred trust.
Earlier this week I asked rhetorically why reporters did not follow up on this story years ago, since many journalists were numbered among the “everybody” who knew about Cardinal McCarrick’s homosexual activities. Julia Duin, the longtime religion writer for the Washington Times, has answered my question in a column of her own, recalling that she could not find sources willing to speak on the record, or editors willing to give her the latitude to probe further into the reports. Moreover, she writes, she ran into a wall of silence among Catholics: an unwillingness to discuss a prelate’s misdeeds. “There were priests and laity alike for whom McCarrick’s predilections were an open secret,” she writes, “but no one wanted to go after him.”
For journalists, the reluctance to “go after” a prominent Catholic leader is understandable. No reporter wants to be accused of slandering a revered public figure, and no reporter wants to be hit with a libel suit. Still there have been plenty of hostile reports about Catholic bishops in the American media over the past 15 years; it is remarkable that writers and editors—who usually know how to imply misconduct without running afoul of libel law—had so little interest in this sensational story. Could it be because they, for their own reasons, also wanted to maintain the standing of a liberal cardinal?
Still the silence of the seminarians, and the lack of curiosity among journalists, are not nearly as appalling as the complicity of other Church leaders. If “everybody” knew, surely some American bishops knew. Why did they not confront Cardinal McCarrick, denounce his behavior, demand his resignation? Why did they tolerate a predator?
During the “Long Lent” of 2002, the American Catholic laity learned that our bishops had betrayed us, protecting guilty clerics rather than innocent young people. Now we see that, sadly, the betrayal did not end with the approval of the Dallas Charter.
If the American Catholic hierarchy is serious about reform, the response to Cardinal McCarrick’s disgrace will not end with a few ritual statements of regret. Our bishops should—if they have the stomach for the task—ask themselves how what “everybody knew” was allowed to continue. Who was responsible for this flawed priest’s rise through the clerical ranks? Who were his allies, his protectors and enablers? And when he reached the zenith of his influence, who were the prelates who flourished under his tutelage?
Any bishop who asks those questions will, I realize, become very unpopular among his colleagues. So it may seem that I am making an unrealistic request. But today we celebrate the feast of St. John Fisher, who took a bold stand for the integrity of the faith at a time when every other English bishop—every single one—backed down. Oremus.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: Retired01 -
Jun. 25, 2018 12:34 PM ET USA
The 2002 scandal was about the abuse of minor males, that is why is was covered by the press. The McCarrick scandal is about homosexual relations between a member of the hierarchy and adults. There is little that is known about homosexual relations among members of the hierarchy and religious order, because these relations are not illegal. That may explain why the press is not interested. I have the suspicion, however, and I have no evidence for this, that this is a big problem.
Posted by: geoffreysmith1 -
Jun. 23, 2018 8:46 AM ET USA
"What else do they know and about whom?" The question arises: Will the priests ordained by McCarrick now be investigated to determine if they also are promoting the homosexual agenda in the ranks of the clergy? Some of them may now be bishops who, in turn, are pestering seminarians for their favors. This cancerous growth of homosexual influence in the Church will destroy our faith if it is not rooted out completely. The edict of Pope Benedict in 2005 must be obeyed, and homosexuals excluded.
Posted by: koinonia -
Jun. 23, 2018 8:07 AM ET USA
Thank you, Phil for your ongoing courage. It is certainly all the more difficult for one who desires simply to be a docile servant of the Church, not a critic of her leadership. This problem runs very deep. For decades there has been an effort among leaders in the Church to throw off the past and to prove a kinder gentler Church. And the cross? The hard things have been put aside;rigidity made to bend. And in the end, we find that without the Cross of Christ always central there is no love.
Posted by: Oedipus Tex -
Jun. 22, 2018 7:17 PM ET USA
This layman did not know, and am disgusted by those who knew and did nothing. What else do they know and about whom?