This article from Crux “McCarrick correspondence confirms restrictions, speaks to Wuerl and China”
ROME – Correspondence obtained by Crux from an ex-aide to Theodore McCarrick, the former cardinal laicized over charges of sexual misconduct and abuse, confirms that restrictions on McCarrick were imposed by the Vatican in 2008. McCarrick also claims that Cardinal Donald Wuerl, then the Archbishop of Washington, was aware of them and involved in conversations about their implementation.
Denial all the way down. Especially as Cardinal Wuerl also denies this new report.
Remember when the attack on Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò mostly revolved around whether these restrictions existed? Viganò testimony tried to prove too much and went into more dubious territory, this aspect I always felt was the strongest part – if accurate.
Still the private restrictions was a major mistake, kind of like an Animal House “double-secret probation” which also didn’t end well.
I recently read an advance copy of Bishop Barron’s “Letter to a Suffering Church”. Found it very good as it does not pull punches. Pretty accurate assessment along with the response.
In it, he calls again for an investigation into McCarrick’s enablers (my words).
This is the aspect I am most skeptical about. While I don’t think clericalism is the root cause of abuse itself (I see it as much more complicated and no single cause). It is a major factor in the cover-ups. Not investigating the circumstances of McCarrick’s rise is pretty much pure clericalism. As a whole, it seems that the bishops don’t want to know the answers as a cover up for fellow bishops. To me, this is something where it is going to have to get much worse before it can get better. I am just as tired of the scandals as anybody else, but I want the truth more than just caring about PR concerns for the Church.
On the other hand I know the difficulties involved in such a investigation. How do you prove someone’s knowledge regarding this? To what extent they knew of or believed these rumors? While it seems pretty improbable that Cardinal Tobin who worked closely with two abusers never suspected or knew, implausibility is not exactly a rule of evidence. Mostly these are things that don’t leave a paper trail. Still, there certainly is paperwork involving the later stages and the Papal Nuncio’s office in Washington, D.C. that should see the light of day. Light is a disinfectant, and also cause roaches to scurry. A serious effort does need to be made.
As an American I see the scandal through the lens of our experience here. Partly because of the concentration of focus here and the early stories. Still I also know that this same story has played out around the world with other McCarrick’s and their enablers.
I really want to be wrong, but no one will face consequences for enabling McCarrick’s rise despite being aware of his peccadillos. Wuerl’s semi-fall was more of a perfect storm of the grand jury report and only partially Archbishop Viganò testimony. All the Sergeant “I see nothing” Shultz’s who are current Cardinals and Bishops will stay in place.
I am more optimistic about other aspects regarding clerical abuse where I do think there is considerable progress. This is an area that requires eternal vigilance since the creation of laws and reporting structures is only a first step.
My own attitude has slowly involved to that I would rather pray for the Church than to constantly gripe about it. Still a case of both/and and even voices from obscure/unimportant blogs can to some limited extent contribute.