McCarrick Resigns. But who supported him?


It has been infuriating and heart-breaking in equal measure observing the machinations and ramifications that have followed the exposure of Cardinal McCarrick as an active homosexual and abuser of boys and men over decades.

The reason it is so devastating is that this was an "open secret", much like the romantic dalliances of our own former Bishop of Arundle and Brighton, Kieran Conry whom Cardinal Nichols made Head of catechesis and evangelisation for the Bishops' Conference! Everyone knew what was going on, especially priests and seminarians, but they closed ranks and kept quiet. McCarrick was promoted, and in turn promoted others. Most concerning is that the names of those he promoted are well known campaigners for a new direction in the Church. Pope Benedict "put McCarrick out to pasture", Pope Francis restored him, as he did Cardinal Danneels and Cardinal Mahony. McCarrick is responsible for the promotion of Farrell, Cupich and Joseph "nighty-night baby"Tobin, as well as the sidelining of the faithful Cardinal Raymond Burke and others. If nothing else, this gives a clear indication of just how deep the filth is. Cardinal Farrell has issued an extraordinary denial of knowledge (which reminded me of Peter's denial of Christ, in a sort of antithetical way:



Cardinal Farrell: "I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I say!" Yet Cardinal Farrell lived with Cardinal McCarrick for SIX YEARS and there are numerous credible reports that Priests lower than Farrell in the food chain knew all about McCarrick back then. Given Farrell's worrying credentials, recently supporting James Martin's pro-LGBT book, suggesting priests have limited credibility with respect to Marriage preperation, just to mention two recent scandals, can we seriously believe Farrell's denial? Perhaps the most terrifying element in all this is the complete disregard of so many bishops and others for righteousness and justice and the fact that despite their high office and incumbent responsibility, they have no fear of hellfire. Probably because they have convinced themselves it does not exist.
This morning it has been announced that McCarrick has resigned from college of cardinals and Pope has Francis accepted his resignation, all though the statement ends ominously:
"...until the accusations made against him are examined in a regular canonical trial.”
The acceptance of resignation as a cardinal and imposition of prayer and penance on McCarrick before canonical process raises a number of questions, most immediately - has he admitted to some of allegations? It also raises questions about how a “regular canonical trial” might have consequences for others.

Personally I think that the Pope could have removed him rather than letting him tender his resignation, although I am not sure if this is even canonically possible, it would certainly have sent a strong message.

Who promoted him? Who did he promote? Who else attended those beach house parties & where are they now? Who now has control of the millions he raised? Who approved the OOC settlement payouts to previous victims? These are all questions which need answering!

Cardinal O'Malley has spoken for the need for new structures to be put in place to deal with such cases, but, as this article documents, the one thing which certainly has not been lacking in the Church’s response to allegations against bishops is the creation of new structures and procedures.

Catholics are not calling for more prudent managers or more efficient processes, they are calling for shepherds with the moral courage to be their brother’s keepers. More process is not the answer, none of the bishops in America seem to be prepared to take some personal responsibility and be their brothers keeper.

This case has indeed brought all sorts of skeletons tumbling out of closets. As the Spectator Religion Podcast discusses here, not least of which is why the US bishops’s sex abuse guidelines excluded penalties for bishops. Could it possibly be anything to do with the fact that ‘Uncle Ted’ McCarrick drafted them?



Prominent papal-tailgating priests are (unbelievably) mounting a co-ordinated counter-offensive, see this:

Note well:

Martin retweeting Rosica tweeting Winters. This is clearly an attempt at damage control. As I say, the thing for me is how we all know that these Cardinals and Bishops are a problem, but no one does anything. I know about English Bishops that there are questions about now, but is it slander to make such rumours public? Even when it seems, no matter how bad you think it is, the reality seems to always be much, much worse? Just in these few short paragraphs you can see how all these men are linked, in their ideology (i.e. it opposes orthodoxy and speaks to  "progress", "change", "development", etc) and in their inter-personal relationships. Birds of a proverbial feather.

So what do we do about it? Well it is good to see that this has been somewhat of a watershed moment insofar as lay Catholics have launched a campaign which seems to be gaining some momentum. The premise is simple. Starve the bad guys:


(The same thing goes for bishops in the UK)

I want to give the final word on this blog to Chris Stefanick whos' pain is evident in this video. Nevertheless the sentiment is a properly Catholic one.



Popular posts from this blog

Far from gossip, The Dictator Pope is "absolutely reliable"

Are the Vatican Rats Turning on Each Other?

The Price of Appeasement