Long-time readers of this blog know that I started it, and its precessor website, precisely because of the misbehaviors of Cardinal McCarrick. Often have I striven to shine the light on his hobnobbing with pro-aborts (such as John Sweeney and Ted Kennedy), rubbing elbows with dissidents like Sister Carol Keehan, turning a blind eye toward the fetal tissue research at Georgetown, and his enthusing about Islam. In light of the recent revelations about McCarrick, you might recall that I said nothing about the allegations of homosexual conduct that even then were swirling about the rumor mill. Why, you might ask?
The reason is quite simple. At the time the allegations were merely rumors. Until several weeks ago, there was no credible allegation that passed legal muster. Until several weeks ago, none of his victims stepped forth into the public to levy charges against him. Now more victims are stepping out of the shadows. But while the victims remained in the shadows, the rumors of homosexual crimes were precisely that - rumors, and unsubstantiated ones at that. I will put nothing on this blog that hasn't been substantiated with facts.
I was a bit troubled to see this piece from Church Militant yesterday, basically taking Catholic League President Bill Donohue to task for knowing but doing nothing. They did quote Donohue's statement. A very relevant piece of it is: "Everyone heard rumors about what was going on down in Sea Girt, on the New Jersey shore. I couldn't verify anything. Who am I? You hear rumors. A lot of rumors are untrue. These rumors turned out to be true." The CM article, towards the end, states that Donohue's "well-placed friends could have verified it for him". Perhaps, but what if Donohue asked and they didn't? How are they so all-fired certain that Donohue didn't try?
None of us would have known a thing had that allegation not been proven credible, with the accusor going public. None of us would dare shine the spotlight on this matter - not so much for fear of legal ramifications but because as Catholics we cannot go about rumor-mongering. I didn't give vent to the rumors for that reason. Donohue, for all his faults (yes, his praise of Wuerl's self-policing idea is, at best, laughable), should not be excoriated for his previous silence. If he tries to defend either Wuerl or McCarrick now that facts are coming forth, then I'd agree he might suffer from myopia - just as those who refuse to hold the pope accountable for his ever-increasing threats to the faith (ahem!).
On the Facebook wall of one of the CM staff, I and another blogger pointed out the pointlessness of accusing Donohue of anything, given that no one had come forth with hard data until the past two months. She tried to contradict us by saying that the site bishopaccountability.org reported on it, as well as Richard Sipe and Rob Drehr. Here''s what I saw on bishopaccountability. You'll have to scroll quite a bit to get to McCarrick. Notice how all the sources are within the past two months?
Regarding Richard Sipe, I see on the site traditioninaction an "open letter" that he wrote to Pope Benedict XVI detailing his concerns about McCarrick's antics. Well, he might indeed have supplied the details to Pope Benedict, but unless we were made privy to them, how on earth were we supposed to act? Without access to facts, we had no choice but to consider the allegations as rumors.
In that discussion I opined that the adult victims who remained silent shared some of the responsibility for allowing McCarrick to continue his rampage unimpeded. I still do. Silence is one of the nine ways that one can cooperate with sin. To those men: you have a moral duty to come forward and report your incidents to the public. While McCarrick himself may be out of circulation, perhaps your story will encourge victims of other pervert clergy to come forward so that those errant priests will be prevented from harming others in the future.
We need to be praying our rosaries for the Church and her ministers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
My concern is that $180,000 in payments were made to two individuals who brought claims against Uncle Ted. Those who must have known his perverted life style must, surely, be in the dozens, and undoubtedly some of them are now, or were before, in powerful positions. How could the media miss all this?
ReplyDeleteI don't know, but the possibility exists. That's why I think it somewhat brash to lob accusations against one person who really isn't a media person. In your statement you mention two who very likely are responsible: the two who received the payments. They were victims but they allowed themselves to be bribed. Clearly they are culpable more so than any media, and I opine that other past victims who still lurk in the shadows will have to answer for their silence.
DeleteYou state there were no facts, just rumors, about McCarrick until very recently. However, the two dioceses in NJ making settlement payments some time ago regarding McCarrick's perverted acts were more than just a rumors! These payments were approved two bishops. The Catholic Church does not pay out huge amounts of "green" based upon rumors.
DeleteBut these are just coming to light, for which we are all grateful. The point of my post is that it is simply ludicrous to be pointing the long knives at Bill Donoghue for not having that information.
DeleteBy the way - you appear to be commenting from the Detroit area. Any affiliation with Church Militant? Just curious...
DeleteNope, commenting from McLean, VA.
DeleteThe rumors were about consensual orgies that men got in their cars and drove to. They knew what it was, they stayed the weekend and participate d more than once.
DeleteThere was no information about pedophilia or settlements in anything privately gossiped about or publicly disclosed.
Trying to pin that on Donohue is an offense against the 8th commandment.
Expressed concerns about his defense of Weurl are valid, but the rest of the allegations by CM are nonsense.
Of all people, Mike should know better about what constitutes a duty to disclose sexual debauchery and what crosses the line based on the information or lack thereof that one has.
Let's keep the clean up of swamp free from personal attacks.
Great post Janet!
Donahue tried to whitewash the abuses in the Catholic workhouses in Ireland where the poor and often single mothers left their children . He stated they were just delinquents anyway. Donahue deserved long knives then No child should be tortured with sexual or physical abuse.
ReplyDeleteSources? Links? Even if that's accurate, that doesn't mean that he deserves the treatment meted to him in this situation.
DeleteI don't think Ol' Bill was too interested in finding out the truth....did he ever even pick up a phone to check around? He's a hack who's got a nice thing going to the tune of $450K a year.
ReplyDeleteHere's a question to ponder. Since when did Bill Donohue ever call himself a journalist? Perhaps I am missing something, but I don't recall seeing any mention of that on the site for Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. So someone has the right to 1) call him a journalist and 2) lambast him for not publishing what were at the time unsubstantiated rumors?
DeleteOf course he is not a journalist!
DeleteThis nonsense is beneath the dignity of truth.
Are you kidding me? He is well connected with the hierarchy and in a position to do something (he publishes regularly and can readily access the media)....do you really want trot out the defense that "he's not a journalist"? Maybe he's just not a decent human being....stop making excuses!
ReplyDeleteHis not being a journalist isn't an excuse; it's a fact. The Catholic League's page doesn't say anything about journalism. Donohue has the right to define the scope of his own work just like Church Militant does. Besides, why would anyone think that any bishop would have confided in him regarding this scandal? I don't appreciate that Donohue took potshots at Church Militant and others, but that doesn't give CN the right to redefine his mission and then rip into him if he doesn't conform to their arbitrary standards.
ReplyDeleteWhy is Church Militant not making the same accusations against George Weigel, Edward Pentin,Raymond Arroyo,and scores of others who have admitted they heard rumors of McCarrick's orgies?
DeleteIf George Neumyer knew of settlements and criminal conduct, that is certainly more substance than information inithe rumor mill. Why didnt he publish allegations the conduct was more than consensual?
I can find nothing published by Church Militant about McCarricks alleged criminal conduct and settlements that precede recent public reports. We're they privy to this information and they withheld it?
None of them should get a pass...and I am certainly no fan of CM.
DeleteThat's your opinion.
Delete"That's your opinion." Really? That's the best you got?
ReplyDeleteStating you "don't give them a pass" sounds like a statement of opinion to me, to which you are entitled. I can see you won't change your mind, as I won't change mine. This exchange will NOT turn into a "who gets the last word" contest on my blog.
Delete