On July 16th the New York Times published an article that details the sexual abuse that many seminarians endured at the hands of Cardinal McCarrick. It also makes clear that higher-ups in Church leadership did absolutely nothing when complaints about Cardinal McCarrick were lodged with them. LifeSiteNews links to the article, with helpful commentary of their own. By the way - this article links to another that details McCarrick's role in procuring the pontificate for Cardinal Bergoglio. McCarrick himself admitted it in the video embedded here.
The latest issue of the Catholic Standard published statements about McCarrick's mess. Frankly, given their absolute silence regarding the Archdiocese's treatment of Father Guarnizo in 2012, a situation that literally made world-wide news, I was wondering if they were going to try the "mum" routine again. They probably realized that they wouldn't get away with it this time, so they tried some "damage control"; either that, or they (and the New York Times) are participating in a wide-scale ruse. What do I mean by "ruse"? As I said in previous posts, I wonder if it's possible that McCarrick is simply taking "one for the team" to appease those of us who are tired of predators in roman collars roaming freely throughout the church. At his age, he hasn't that much to lose, and could easily be placed somewhere to live his remaining years rather comfortably.
Anyway, the Standard published McCarrick's statement, available here. I commented on the part where he said he "had no recollection" of the abuse. However, he also said "I am sorry for the pain the person who brought the charge has gone through.." Pain? What pain? If pain is present, what caused that pain? And why would McCarrick think it appropriate to say he's sorry for the pain? Freudian slip much?
Also on the 16th Renew American published a piece by Matt Abbott in which he discloses what one of McCarrick's victims told him about twelve years ago. The now-ex-priest's name is Bart Aslin So far he, Ciolek, and Father Boniface Ramsey (LSN article) are the only ones (to my knowledge) that have gone on record to detail My blogging colleague Vox Cantoris opines that all bishops today at least knew of McCarrick's sordid activities and yet remained silent. I agree but I think the conspiracy of silence goes much further than that. There are many priests who either were targeted by the Cardinal or knew of the targeting of their brother priests and seminarians. Mr. Aslin wrote that many of them chose silence to protect their chances of ordination. However, they were taught (or should have been taught) in their moral theology classes that the ends do not justify evil means. Yes, their silence was and is evil. By their silence they made it easier for the abuse to continue unabated. I reiterate my call for them to come forth and join Aslin and Ciolek to ensure that McCarrick has no more access to young boys.