Cardinal Ouellet denounces Viganó’s call for Pope’s resignation

VATICAN CITY (CNS) — The Vatican has publicly denounced accusations that was complicit in hiding the offences of now-disgraced former cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington.

The word came Oct. 7 from Canadian Cardinal , of the Congregation for , in an open letter to Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganó, the former Vatican nuncio to the United States.

“I tell you frankly that to accuse Pope Francis of having covered-up knowingly the case of an alleged sexual predator and, therefore, of being an accomplice to the corruption that afflicts the Church, to the point that he could no longer continue to carry out his reform as the first shepherd of the Church, appears to me from all viewpoints unbelievable and without any foundation,” Ouellet wrote. “I cannot understand how could you have allowed yourself to be convinced of this monstrous and unsubstantiated accusation. Francis had nothing to do with McCarrick’s promotions to New York, Metuchen, Newark and Washington. He stripped him of his Cardinal’s dignity as soon as there was a credible accusation of abuse of a minor.”

Archbishop Viganó had issued an open letter to Cardinal Ouellet in late September, urging him to tell what he knew about McCarrick. It followed his massive statement in mid-August calling on Pope Francis to resign because, he alleged, Pope Francis had known there were sanctions on McCarrick and not only did he lift them, he allegedly made him a trusted confidante and adviser on bishops’ appointments in the United States.

Indications are that allegations of sexual misconduct by McCarrick had reached the Vatican as early as 2000. However, wrote Ouellet, because there were only rumours and insufficient proof, then-Pope Benedict XVI never imposed formal sanctions on the retired Washington archbishop, and therefore Pope Francis could not have lifted them.

In late June, then-Cardinal McCarrick, the 88-year-old retired archbishop of Washington, said he would no longer exercise any public ministry “in obedience” to the Vatican after an allegation he abused a teenager 47 years ago in the Archdiocese of New York was found credible. Since then, several former seminarians have alleged that the cardinal would invite groups of them to a beach house and insist individual members of the group share a bed with him. Pope Francis accepted McCarrick’s resignation from the on July 28 and ordered him to maintain “a life of prayer and penance” until a canonical trial examines accusations that he sexually abused minors.

Cardinal Ouellet’s letter, written with the approval of Pope Francis, was published the day after the Vatican said the pope had ordered a “thorough study of the entire documentation present in the archives of the dicasteries and offices of the regarding the former Cardinal McCarrick in order to ascertain all the relevant facts, to place them in their historical context and to evaluate them objectively.”

The letter did not defend the original handling of the allegations, stating “the Holy See is conscious that, from the examination of the facts and of the circumstances, it may emerge that choices were taken that would not be consonant with a contemporary approach to such issues.”

Archbishop Viganó had said he personally informed Pope Francis in June 2013 that in “2009 or 2010,” after Cardinal McCarrick had retired, Pope Benedict imposed sanctions on him because of allegations of sexual misconduct with and sexual harassment of seminarians. Archbishop Viganó later explained that Pope Benedict issued the sanctions “privately” perhaps “due to the fact that he (Archbishop McCarrick) was already retired, maybe due to the fact that he (Pope Benedict) was thinking he was ready to obey.”

In his open letter Archbishop Viganó, Cardinal Ouellet said, “You say you informed Pope Francis on June 23, 2013, of the McCarrick case in an audience he granted to you like many other papal representatives he met for the first time that day.”

“Imagine the enormous quantity of verbal and written information he received that day regarding many people and situations,” the cardinal wrote. “I strongly doubt that McCarrick interested him as much as you would like us to believe, given the fact that he was an 82-year-old archbishop emeritus who had been without a post for seven years.”

As for the written instructions the prepared for Archbishop Viganó in 2011 when he was to begin his service as nuncio to the United States, “they say nothing at all about McCarrick.” However, the cardinal added, “I told you verbally of the situation of the emeritus who was to observe certain conditions and restrictions because of rumours about his behaviour in the past.” Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganó, then nuncio to the United States, and then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, are seen in a 2014 combination photo. (CNS photo/Gregory A. Shemitz)

Cardinal McCarrick “was strongly exhorted not to travel and not to appear in public so as not to provoke further rumours,” Cardinal Ouellet said, but “it is false to present these measures taken in his regard as ‘sanctions’ decreed by Pope Benedict XVI and annulled by Pope Francis. After re-examining the archives, I certify that there are no such documents signed by either pope.”

And, unlike what Archbishop Viganó alleged, there are no documents from Cardinal Ouellet’s predecessor, Cardinal , saying that then-Cardinal McCarrick was ordered to live a life of withdrawal and silence under the threat of canonical penalties.

The reason such measures were not taken then and were only taken in June by Pope Francis, Cardinal Ouellet said, was because there was not “sufficient proof of his presumed guilt.” “His case would have been the object of new disciplinary measures if the nunciature in Washington or any other source would have furnished us with recent and decisive information about his behaviour,” the cardinal wrote.

Archbishop Viganó left as soon as his mid-August missive was published, claiming that it was for his own safety. Cardinal Ouellet urged him to “come out of hiding” and “repent of your revolt,” and asked him, “How can you celebrate the holy Eucharist and pronounce his (the pope’s) name in the canon of the Mass?”

In closing, Cardinal Ouellet wrote: “Dear Viganò, in response to your unjust and unjustified attack, I can only conclude that the accusation is a political plot that lacks any real basis that could incriminate the Pope and that profoundly harms the communion of the Church. May God allow a prompt reparation of this flagrant injustice so that Pope Francis can continue to be recognized for who he is: a true shepherd, a resolute and compassionate father, a prophetic grace for the Church and for the World.”

U.S. bishops outline plan of action in shadow of abuse crisis

Pledging to “heal and protect with every bit of the strength God provides us,” the U.S. bishops’ Administrative Committee outlined actions to address the abuse crisis, including approving the establishment of a third-party confidential reporting system for claims of any abuse by bishops.

It also instructed the U.S. bishops’ canonical affairs committee to develop proposals for policies addressing restrictions on bishops who were removed or resigned because of allegations of abuse of minors or adults.

It initiated the process of developing a code of conduct for bishops regarding sexual misconduct with a minor or adult or “negligence in the exercise of his office related to such cases.”

The committee also said it supported “a full investigation into the situation” surrounding Archbishop Theodore E. McCarrick, former cardinal-archbishop of Washington, “including his alleged assaults on minors, priests and seminarians, as well as “any responses made to those allegations.”

The statement, released by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, came out of the committee’s semiannual meeting held Sept. 11-12 at USCCB headquarters in Washington.

The Administrative Committee consists of the officers, chairmen and regional representatives of the USCCB. The committee, which meets in March and September, is the highest authority of the USCCB outside of the full body of bishops when they meet for their fall and spring general assemblies.

“This is only a beginning,” the committee said in its Sept. 19 statement.

“Consultation with a broad range of concerned parents, experts and other laity along with clergy and religious will yield additional, specific measures to be taken to repair the scandal and restore justice.

“We humbly welcome and are grateful for the assistance of the whole people of God in holding us accountable,” the committee said.

The committee acknowledged its members had assembled for their meeting in Washington at a “time of shame and sorrow.”

“Some bishops, by their actions or their failures to act, have caused great harm to both individuals and the church as a whole,” the committee said. “They have used their authority and power to manipulate and sexually abuse others.

“They have allowed the fear of scandal to replace genuine concern and care for those who have been victimized by abusers,” it continued. “For this, we again ask forgiveness from both the Lord and those who have been harmed. Turning to the Lord for strength, we must and will do better.”

Full descriptions of the actions the committee took are as follows:

— Approved the establishment of a third-party reporting system that will receive confidentially, by phone and online, complaints of of minors by a bishop and sexual harassment of or sexual misconduct with adults by a bishop. It will direct those complaints to the appropriate ecclesiastical authority and, as required by applicable law, to civil authorities.

— Instructed the USCCB Committee on Canonical Affairs and Church Governance to develop proposals for policies addressing restrictions on bishops who were removed or resigned because of allegations of sexual abuse of minors or sexual harassment of or misconduct with adults, including seminarians and priests.

— Initiated the process of developing a code of conduct for bishops regarding the sexual abuse of a minor; sexual harassment of or sexual misconduct with an adult; or negligence in the exercise of his office related to such cases.

— Supported a full investigation into the situation surrounding Archbishop McCarrick, including his alleged assaults on minors, priests, and seminarians, as well any responses made to those allegations. “Such an investigation should rely upon lay experts in relevant fields, such as law enforcement and social services.”

As the initiatives get underway, the Administrative Committee asked all U.S. bishops “to join us in acts of prayer and penance.”

“This is a time of deep examination of conscience for each bishop. We cannot content ourselves that our response to sexual assault within the church has been sufficient. Scripture must be our guide forward. ‘Be doers of the word and not hearers only,'” it said, quoting the Letter of James.

“In all of this,” no one — including the bishops — can “lose sight of those who have suffered from those who have acted or failed to act as the Gospel demanded,” it said.

“For survivors of sexual abuse, these days may reopen deep wounds. Support is available from the church and within the community,” it emphasized.

The committee reminded all in the church that victims assistance coordinators are available in every diocese to help victim-survivors and their families find resources.

Since the bishops first adopted “the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People” in 2002, the committee said, “hundreds of dedicated people … have been working with the church to support survivors and prevent future abuse.”

It said anyone who has been abused must “never hesitate to also contact local law enforcement.”

“If you don’t feel comfortable for any reason with the church providing help, your diocese can connect you with appropriate community services,” the committee said. “With compassion and without judgment, the bishops of the United States pledge to heal and protect with every bit of the strength God provides us.”

The committee concluded: “Acting in communion with the Holy Father, with whom we once again renew our love, obedience and loyalty, we make our own the prayer of Pope Francis in his Aug. 20 letter to the people of God, ‘May the Holy Spirit grant us the grace of conversion and the interior anointing needed to express before these crimes of abuse our compunction and our resolve courageously to combat them.'”

‘Make your own judgment’, Pope says under fire over cover-up claims

Pope Francis said Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano’s long document calling on him to resign is written in a way that people should be able to draw their own conclusions.

“I read the statement this morning and, sincerely, I must say this to you and anyone interested: Read that statement attentively and make your own judgment,” he told reporters Aug. 26. “I think the statement speaks for itself, and you have a sufficient journalistic ability to make a conclusion.”

Speaking to reporters traveling back to Rome with him from Dublin, the pope said his lack of comment was “an act of faith” in people reading the document. “Maybe when a bit of time has passed, I’ll talk about it.”

Read the full text of the Pope’s press conference.

Asked directly when he first learned of the former Cardinal McCarrick’s sexual abuse, Pope Francis said the question was related directly to Archbishop Vigano’s report and he would not comment now.

Archbishop Vigano, the former nuncio to the United States, claimed he told Pope Francis about Cardinal McCarrick in 2013.

In June, the Vatican announced that the pope had ordered the former Washington archbishop to live in “prayer and penance” while a canonical process proceeds against him. The pope later accepted Archbishop McCarrick’s resignation from the College of Cardinals.

The issue of clerical sexual abuse and other crimes and mistreatment of minors and vulnerable adults by Catholic priests and religious and the attempts by bishops and superiors to cover up the facts dominated the news coverage of the pope’s trip to Ireland for the World Meeting of Families.

The pope said his meeting Aug. 25 with survivors of abuse was “very painful,” but it was very important “to listen to these people.”

Marie Collins, a survivor and former member of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, told reporters after the meeting that she is still concerned that the pope has not established a tribunal to investigate and hold accountable bishops accused of failing to protect minors and covering up abuse. Marie Collins is seen at the World Meeting of Families in Dublin Aug. 24.

Pope Francis said while he likes and admires Collins, “she is fixated” on the accountability tribunal, and he believes he has found a more efficient and flexible way to investigate and try suspected bishops by setting up temporary tribunals when needed.

The pope then went on to describe how “many bishops” had been investigated and tried, most recently Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron of Agana, Guam. In March an ad hoc apostolic tribunal of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith found him guilty of “certain accusations.”

Pope Francis said the archbishop has appealed the conviction and, while he has asked some canon lawyers for input, he plans to make the final judgment on the archbishop’s case himself.

But the archbishop was accused of sexually abusing minors; the tribunal Collins was talking about was supposed to look specifically at bishops accused of covering up cases of abuse.

The pope immediately welcomed one of the suggestions made during the meeting with survivors: that he ask publicly and very specifically for forgiveness for the abuse that took place in a variety of Catholic institutions. The result was a penitential litany at the beginning of the Mass he celebrated in Dublin Aug. 26 to close the World Meeting of the Families.

Pope Francis said the survivors’ meeting was the first time he had heard details about the church-run homes for women who were pregnant out of wedlock. Many of the women were forced to give their babies up for adoption and were even told that it would be a “mortal sin” to go looking for their children.

The now-notorious St. Mary’s home for unmarried mothers and their children in Tuam was a specific case brought to the pope’s attention personally by Katherine Zappone, Irish minister for children and youth affairs.

Pope Francis told reporters that Zappone had given him a memo about a “mass grave” found on the site of one of the homes and “it appears that the church was involved.”

In May 2014 a local amateur historian in Tuam claimed that between 1925 and 1961, 796 infants died in St. Mary’s home. She found burial records only for two of the children. The rest, she believed, were buried in a common grave on the site, including in a former septic tank.

The home was run by the Bon Secours congregation of nuns.

The Irish government is still in the process of trying to determine the best way to remember the victims and decide what to do with the Tuam site.

Asked by reporters what lay Catholics can do about the clerical abuse scandal, Pope Francis responded, “When you see something, say something immediately,” preferably to someone with the authority to investigate and stop it.

The role of the media is important for getting the truth out, he said, but journalists should be careful to write about accusations “always with the presumption of innocence, not a presumption of guilt.”

He pleaded with Catholic parents to listen to their children, even if the thought of a priest abusing them is horrifying. Stating again that he often meets on Fridays with survivors of abuse, he told reporters, “I met a woman who has suffered with this wound for 40 years because her parents would not believe her.”

During the inflight news conference, Pope Francis also was asked about Ireland’s legalization of gay marriage and what advice he would give the parent of a gay child.

“What would I say to a parent whose son or daughter had that tendency? I would say first, pray. Don’t condemn. Dialogue, understand, make room for that son or daughter, make room so he can express himself,” the pope said. “I would never say silence is a remedy,” he said. And “to ignore one’s son or daughter who has a homosexual tendency is a failure of fatherhood or motherhood.”

-With files from Catholic News Agency

Pope Francis and Church accused of covering up abuses of former U.S. cardinal

A former apostolic nuncio to the United States accused church officials, including Pope Francis, of failing to act on accusations of abuse of conscience and power by now-Archbishop Theodore E. McCarrick.

In an open letter first published by Lifesite News and National Catholic Register Aug. 26, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, who served as nuncio to the United States from 2011-2016, wrote that he was compelled to write his knowledge of Archbishop McCarrick’s misdeeds because “corruption has reached the very top of the church’s hierarchy.”

Archbishop Vigano confirmed to Aug. 26 that he wrote the letter and said he would not comment further. Despite repeated requests from journalists, the Vatican had not responded to the allegations by midday Aug. 26.

Throughout the 11-page testimony, which was translated by a Lifesite News correspondent, the former nuncio made several claims and accusations against prominent church officials, alleging they belong to “a homosexual current” that subverted church teaching on homosexuality.

Citing the rights of the faithful to “know who knew and who covered up (Archbishop McCarrick’s) grave misdeeds,” Archbishop Vigano named nearly a dozen former and current Vatican officials who he claimed were aware of the accusations.

Archbishop Vigano criticized Pope Francis for not taking action against Cardinal McCarrick after he claimed he told the pope of the allegations in 2013. However, he did not make any criticism of St. John Paul II, who appointed Archbishop McCarrick to lead the Archdiocese of Washington and made him a cardinal in 2001. Former Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick

According to the former nuncio’s testimony, the Vatican was informed in 2000 of allegations that Archbishop McCarrick “shared his bed with seminarians” by two former U.S. nuncios — Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo and Archbishop .

This corresponds to remarks by Father Boniface Ramsey, pastor of St. Joseph’s Church Yorkville in New York City, who told Catholic News Service earlier in August he had written a letter “and it didn’t seem to go anywhere.”

Archbishop Vigano said that in 2006, as the official in the Secretariat of State that coordinated relations with nunciatures around the world, he sent two memos recommending that the Holy See “intervene as soon as possible by removing the cardinal’s hat from Cardinal McCarrick and that he should be subjected to the sanctions established by the Code of Canon Law.”

“I was greatly dismayed at my superiors for the inconceivable absence of any measure against the cardinal, and for the continuing lack of any communication with me since my first memo in December 2006,” he said.

The former nuncio claimed that Pope Benedict XVI later “imposed on Cardinal McCarrick sanctions similar to those now imposed on him by Pope Francis.”

“I do not know when Pope Benedict took these measures against McCarrick, whether in 2009 or 2010, because in the meantime I had been transferred to the Governorate of State, just as I do not know who was responsible for this incredible delay,” he said.

Then-Cardinal McCarrick, he said, “was to leave the where he was living” which, at the time, was the Redemptoris Mater Seminary in Washington, D.C.

Archbishop McCarrick, he added, was also “forbidden to celebrate Mass in public, to participate in public meetings, to give lectures, to travel, with the obligation of dedicating himself to a life of prayer and penance.”

However, no such sanctions, which normally are made public, were announced by the Vatican at the time.

The alleged sanctions, he said, continued to be in effect when Archbishop Vigano became apostolic nuncio to the United States in 2011 and were relayed to then-Cardinal McCarrick.

“I repeated them to Cardinal McCarrick at my first meeting with him at the nunciature. The cardinal, muttering in a barely comprehensible way, admitted that he had perhaps made the mistake of sleeping in the same bed with some seminarians at his beach house, but he said this as if it had no importance,” Archbishop Vigano wrote.

Washington Cardinal Donald W. Wuerl

Archbishop Vigano also said that Cardinal Donald W. Wuerl of Washington, D.C., was the first informed of the sanctions against McCarrick. He said he spoke directly to Cardinal Wuerl on several occasions and that Cardinal Wuerl “failed to acknowledge receipt of my two letters, contrary to what he customarily did.”

“His recent statements that he knew nothing about it, even though at first he cunningly referred to compensation for the two victims, are absolutely laughable. The cardinal lies shamelessly and prevails upon his chancellor, Msgr. Antonicelli, to lie as well,” the archbishop wrote.

He apparently was referring to Msgr. Charles V. Antonicelli, vicar general and moderator of the curia. The Washington Archdiocese chancellor is a layman, Kim Viti Fiorentino.

Contacted by Catholic News Service, Edward McFadden, secretary for communications for the Archdiocese of Washington, said: “In spite of what Archbishop Vigano’s memo indicates, Cardinal Wuerl did not receive any documentation or information during his time in Washington, regarding any actions taken against Archbishop McCarrick.”

He also alleged that several U.S. were aware or should have known about then-Cardinal McCarrick’s behavior, including retired Bishop Paul Bootkoski of Metuchen; retired Archbishop John J. Myers of Newark; Cardinal Kevin J. Farrell, head of the Vatican office for laity and family and former auxiliary bishop of Washington, D.C., and Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley of Boston, president of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors.

Cardinal Farrell told Catholic News Service July 24: “I was shocked, overwhelmed; I never heard any of this before in the six years I was there with him.”

In a June 20 statement, Cardinal Joseph W. Tobin of Newark said: “The Archdiocese of Newark has never received an accusation that Cardinal McCarrick abused a minor. In the past, there have been allegations that he engaged in sexual behavior with adults. This Archdiocese and the Diocese of Metuchen received three allegations of sexual misconduct with adults decades ago; two of these allegations resulted in settlements.”

In a July 29 statement, Cardinal Wuerl said: “When the first claim against Archbishop McCarrick was filed in the Archdiocese of New York, the Archdiocese of Washington reviewed its own files and found no complaints of any kind made against Archbishop McCarrick.

“Further, the confidential settlements involving acts by Archbishop McCarrick in the Diocese of Metuchen and the Archdiocese of Newark were not known previously to Cardinal Wuerl or the Archdiocese.”

Cardinal O’Malley has apologized for what he described as an administrative communication failure in which his secretary did not relay to him a 2015 letter from Father Ramsey about allegations against Archbishop McCarrick.

Archbishop Vigano himself has been accused of suppressing an investigation into alleged homosexual activity committed by retired Archbishop John Nienstedt of St. Paul and Minneapolis.

In a 2014 memo to St. Paul-Minneapolis Auxiliary Bishop Lee A. Piche, Father Dan Griffith, a former delegate for Safe Environment for the archdiocese, said the former nuncio’s call to end the investigation against Archbishop Nienstedt and to destroy a piece of evidence amounted to “a good old-fashioned cover-up to preserve power and avoid scandal.” Archbishop Nienstedt and Bishop Piche resigned in 2015 after the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office filed criminal and civil charges against the archdiocese in its handling of sexual abuse perpetrated by former priest Curtis Wehmeyer in 2008-2011.

This is not the first time that Archbishop Vigano has been openly critical of Pope Francis.

In January, nearly two years after the release of Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation on marriage and family life, , the former nuncio was among several prelates who signed a document criticizing ministry to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics and the possibility that, under some conditions, some of those Catholics could return to the sacraments.

The document claimed the pope’s exhortation caused “ever increasing confusion among the faithful” and stated that the admission of divorced and civilly remarried Catholics is “a discipline alien to the entire tradition of the Catholic and apostolic faith.”

Church leaders urge inquiry led by lay persons into abuse claims against archbishop

WASHINGTON — U.S. leaders have been calling for an internal investigation into the handling of allegations of abuse and sexual misconduct against Archbishop Theodore E. McCarrick and urging such an inquiry be spearheaded by laypeople.

“I think we have reached a point where bishops alone investigating bishops is not the answer. To have credibility, a panel would have to be separated from any source of power whose trustworthiness might potentially be compromised,” said Bishop Edward B. Scharfenberger of Albany, New York.

In an Aug. 6 statement, the bishop said he was “heartened by my brother bishops proposing ways for our Church to take action in light of recent revelations” and he agreed “a national panel should be commissioned, duly approved by the Holy See.”

But the bishop said laypeople had a crucial role to play in this work, noting that they are “not only willing to take on this much-needed role, but they are eager to help us make lasting reforms that will restore a level of trust that has been shattered yet again.”

“In speaking with them, ” he said, “we all hear their passion for our universal Church, their devotion to the Gospel of Christ, and their hunger for the truth. They are essential to the solution we seek.”

Bishop Edward B. Scharfenberger of Albany, N.Y., is pictured in a 2015 photo in Washington. CNS photo/Bob Roller

Bishop Scharfenberger said what is currently needed is “an independent commission led by well-respected, faithful lay leaders who are beyond reproach, people whose role on such a panel will not serve to benefit them financially, politically or personally. These will be people with a deep understanding of the Catholic faith, but without an axe to grind or an agenda to push. It will not be easy, but it will be worth every ounce of effort, energy and candor we can muster.”

He stressed that U.S. bishops must “get this right” and he said he is confident they can “find a way to look outside ourselves, to put this in the hands of the Holy Spirit, and to entrust our very capable laypeople, who have stood with us through very difficult times, to help us do the right thing.”

“We need an investigation — the scope of which is not yet defined but must be defined — and it must be timely, transparent and credible.”

Similarly, Cardinal Blase J. Cupich of Chicago, former head of the U.S. bishops’ committee on child and youth protection, said in an interview with America magazine that he supports an investigation into the handling of allegations of abuse and sexual misconduct against Archbishop McCarrick that includes laypeople. The cardinal told the Jesuit magazine he was shocked to learn about Archbishop McCarrick’s double life and would support “a full inquiry” into why those settlements against him were not disclosed.

“We have to find out exactly what took place, especially with regard to the adult misbehaviour that was alleged,” he said, adding that if dioceses lack policies on how to deal with allegations of misbehaviour involving adults, then “we need to correct that.”

Washington Cardinal Donald W. Wuerl told the National Catholic Reporter Aug. 5 that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops should create a new panel to receive and evaluate any allegations or rumours of sexual misconduct by a member bishop, adding that the Vatican could designate one of its offices to act on the proposed panel’s findings.

The cardinal said he had not personally been aware of rumours about Archbishop McCarrick’s alleged abuse of young men while he was a priest and bishop, but the cardinal said there should be a mechanism where rumours about bishops could be reviewed.

“It seems to me that’s one possibility, that there would be some way for the bishops, and that would mean working through our conference … to be able to address the question of sustained rumours,” he told the independent, lay-owned biweekly newspaper. He said the proposed panel of bishops might turn any findings it makes on an accused bishop to the apostolic nuncio, who could pass these findings on to a Vatican office.

“We don’t pass judgment,” Cardinal Wuerl told NCR. “That has to go to Rome. So, it seems to me there has to be some mechanism in the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith or in the Congregation for Bishops to evaluate any concern that a conference of bishops might have about one of its members.”

He said his idea of a new panel was in response to the Aug. 1 statement by Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, USCCB president, that said the bishops’ conference would discuss at its annual fall meeting “the right course of action” in wake of revelations of Archbishop McCarrick’s abuse.

Cardinal Wuerl said bishops need to be ready for this meeting with work already done and ideas in place.

Cardinal Cupich similarly urged bishops to be ready to discuss this issue at their November meeting. He told America magazine that Catholics should ask their bishops to explain the policies in place to protect both children and adults from harassment and abuse.

If Church leaders “need help in that nationally, then we need to do something,” he said, adding: “Let’s roll up our sleeves when we get together in November and do it.” Related stories:

• Allegations against Cardinal McCarrick raise difficult questions • Pope accepts McCarrick’s resignation from College of Cardinals

Pope accepts McCarrick’s resignation from College of Cardinals

VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis has accepted the resignation from the College of Cardinals of Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, retired archbishop of Washington, and has ordered him to maintain “a life of prayer and penance” until a canonical trial examines accusations that he sexually abused minors.

The announcement came first from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and a few minutes later from the Vatican press office. The press office said July 28 that the previous evening Pope Francis had received Archbishop McCarrick’s letter of “resignation as a member of the College of Cardinals.”

“Pope Francis accepted his resignation from the cardinalate and has ordered his suspension from the exercise of any public ministry, together with the obligation to remain in a house yet to be indicated to him, for a life of prayer and penance until the accusations made against him are examined in a regular canonical trial,” the Vatican statement said.

In late June, Archbishop McCarrick, the 88-year-old retired archbishop of Washington, said he would no longer exercise any public ministry “in obedience” to the Vatican after an allegation he abused a teenager 47 years ago in the Archdiocese of New York was found credible. The cardinal has said he is innocent.

In the weeks that followed the announcement, another man came forward claiming he was abused as a child by Archbishop McCarrick and several former seminarians have spoken out about being sexually harassed by the cardinal at a beach house he had.

Although unusual, withdrawal from the College of Cardinals in such circumstances is not unheard of. Just 10 days before then-Pope Benedict XVI retired in 2013, Scottish Cardinal Keith O’Brien announced he would not participate in the conclave to elect Pope Benedict’s successor because he did not want media attention focused on him instead of the election of a new pope. Pope Benedict had accepted the cardinal’s resignation as archbishop of St. Andrews and Edinburgh after reports that three priests and a former priest had accused the cardinal of “inappropriate conduct” with them going back to the 1980s.

One week after the conclave that elected Pope Francis, the Vatican announced the new pope accepted Cardinal O’Brien’s decision to renounce all “duties and privileges” associated with being a cardinal. He died March 19.

Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, USCCB president, thanked the pope for accepting Archbishop McCarrick’s resignation from the College of Cardinals. In a July 28th statement he said: “I thank the Holy Father for his leadership in taking this important step. It reflects the priority the Holy Father places on the need for protection and care for all our people and the way failures in this area affect the life of the church in the United States.”

In New Jersey, Cardinal Joseph W. Tobin of Newark, an archdiocese that McCarrick headed in 1986-2000, stated July 28: “The somber announcement from the Vatican this morning will impact the Catholic community of the Archdiocese of Newark with particular force.”

“This latest news is a necessary step for the church to hold itself accountable for sexual abuse and harassment perpetrated by its ministers, no matter their rank,” Cardinal Tobin said. “I ask my brothers and sisters to pray for all who may have been harmed by the former cardinal, and to pray for him as well.”

Before being named to Newark, then-Bishop McCarrick was founding bishop of the Diocese of Metuchen, New Jersey, serving there 1981 to 1986. Other reaction from U.S. bishops included a strongly worded letter from Bishop Michael F. Olson of Fort Worth Texas, to the people of the diocese.

“Ministry in the church is a grace from God that carries with it sober responsibility. Ministry is not a right to be claimed by anyone as an entitlement; rather, it involves a convenantal trust established through our baptism as members of the church established by Christ,” he said. “We see in the scandalous crimes and sins alleged to have been committed by now former Cardinal McCarrick, the violation of trust and the grave damage caused to the lives and health of his purported victims,” he continued. “The scandal and pain are compounded by the horrific fact that reportedly one of his victims was his first baptism after his priestly ordination.”

Bishop Olson said the former cardinal’s alleged crimes “have caused further damage to the integrity of the hierarchy and the mission of the church,” and as a result “his prompt reduction canonically to the laity should be strongly deliberated.”

The Texas bishop also said church leaders who knew of the former cardinal’s “alleged crimes and sexual misconduct and did nothing (must) be held accountable for their refusal to act thereby enabling others to be hurt.”

Bishop Olson added that the Fort Worth diocese “and I have zero tolerance for sexual abuse against minors, as well as against vulnerable adults by its clergy, staff and volunteers, including me as bishop.” He assured Catholics that any such allegation is taken seriously and swiftly acted on according to the diocese’s protocols.

Allegations against Cardinal McCarrick raise difficult questions

A new allegation of child sexual abuse was leveled against Cardinal Theodore McCarrick last Thursday, one month after the June announcement that he had been suspended from priestly ministry following an investigation into a different charge of sexual abuse on the part of the cardinal.

Along with emerging accounts from priests and former seminarians of sexual coercion and abuse by McCarrick, those allegations paint a picture of McCarrick’s sexual malfeasance that may be among the most grave, tragic, and, for many Catholics, infuriating, as any in recent Catholic history.

From all corners of the Church, questions are being raised about those who might have known about McCarrick’s misconduct, about how the Church will now handle the allegations against McCarrick, and about what it means for the Church that a prominent, powerful, and reportedly predatory cleric was permitted to continue in ministry for decades without censure or intervention.

Because McCarrick was a leading voice in the Church’s 2002 response to the sexual abuse crisis in the United States, and an architect of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Dallas Charter of the same year, the credibility of that response has also, for some, come into question.

For parents and others who placed trust in the Church to secure a safe environment for children, those questions are especially important.

At the USCCB’s 2002 Spring Assembly in Dallas, the bishops drafted their Charter for the Protection of Young People and the Essential Norms for Diocesan/Eparchial Policies Dealing with Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Priests or , under intense media scrutiny.

There was a prescient moment at that meeting.

As the bishops discussed amendments to the document, Archbishop Elden Curtiss, then-Archbishop of Omaha, asked why a revision to the text replaced the term “clerics” with the phrase “priests and deacons.” “Bishops are also clerics,” Curtiss pointed out.

William Lori, then Bishop of Bridgeport, Connecticut, said that the drafting committee “decided we would limit it to priests and deacons, as the disciplining of bishops is beyond the purview of this document. ‘Cleric’ would cover all three, so we decided not to use the word ‘cleric.’”

The policies the USCCB drafted would eventually be approved by the Vatican, to serve as particular law governing the Church in the United States. There is no obvious reason to think that the Holy See would have forbidden the bishops’ conference to make child protection laws governing all clerics, including bishops, though the conference decided not to do so. And it should be mentioned that universal canon law does address sexual abuse committed by any cleric- , priest, or bishop.

But the bishops in Dallas seemed mostly content to discuss sexual abuse as a problem pertaining to priests, and not a problem that might plague their own ranks.

Why?

It is possible that the bishops expected the Holy See would strike down proposed laws regarding bishops, preferring to reserve matters related to the discipline of bishops to itself.

It could be that the bishops trusted the Vatican to be responsible for overseeing and disciplining bishops, and felt new norms were not necessary.

It is also plausible that in 2002 few bishops might have conceived that their brother bishops would commit acts of very grave and craven sexual misconduct. Of course, if Cardinal McCarrick was in the room- and if he is guilty of abusing priests, seminarians, and children- he knew that such a thing was possible.

So too did Archbishop Harry Flynn, then of Minneapolis-St. Paul, who chaired the committee drafting the report, and led much of the discussion at the Dallas meeting.

Archbishop Flynn was appointed to Minneapolis-St. Paul in 1994. Three years earlier, a new auxiliary bishop was appointed by Pope John Paul II to that diocese: Lawrence Welsh, who from 1978-1990 was Bishop of Spokane. In 1986, Welsh was accused of attempting to strangle a male prostitute in Chicago. Welsh admitted to putting “his hands all over the victim’s body,” in a hotel room, according to a police report of the incident, but he was not charged with a crime.

In 1989, Welsh was arrested for drunk driving in a part of Spokane popular with male prostitutes, and he resigned from office a few months later. He was appointed to a new role in Minneapolis the next year.

Welsh died in 1999. At the time of his death, Flynn called him “an extraordinary man and a faith-filled servant of the Church.” Three years later, Flynn presided over the committee that decided, for whatever reason, not to include bishops in the American Church’s laws about sexual abuse.

Now, as the McCarrick scandal continues to take shape, the decision to omit bishops themselves from the Charter, and to focus exclusively on priests, seems to some Catholics to be gravely naive, or to be a symbol for the failure of bishops to hold one another accountable.

Church-watchers have often recognized that many American bishops tend to strenuously avoid criticizing one another, or publicly calling attention to one another’s faults, preferring the appearance of affable collegiality, even amid significant substantive disagreement.

The McCarrick allegations suggest to some that those tendencies have led to a situation in which, in practice, there is one set of rules regarding the behaviour of priests and deacons in the Church, and another set of rules for bishops.

Since the Dallas Charter and Essential Norms were promulgated in 2002, a priest or deacon accused serially of sexual misconduct with seminarians, over whom he holds a position of authority, is unlikely to be permitted to continue in pastoral ministry, and especially not in leadership positions.

Yet, in 2005 and 2007, the Diocese of Metuchen and Archdiocese of Newark paid settlements to priests who say they were abused by McCarrick during their time in seminary and as young priests, and, after those settlements, McCarrick was permitted to continue to function publicly as a cardinal.

Cardinal McCarrick participated in the conclave that elected Pope Benedict XVI in the same year a settlement over his misconduct was reached. While his resignation as Archbishop of Washington was accepted in 2006 because of his age, he continued in ceremonial positions, acting as a quasi-official or official representative of the Church at some public functions, and celebrating large public liturgies.

But, for many Catholics, questions have not been answered sufficiently about whether bishops aware of McCarrick’s apparent tendencies intervened to have him removed from ministry, and whether they should have alerted the public to his reported proclivities.

Not yet answered, for example, is whether Archbishop John Myers and Bishop Paul Bootkoski, who presided over the Newark and Metuchen dioceses when settlements were reached, raised any questions at the Vatican or with the apostolic nuncio in Washington, about McCarrick’s alleged behaviour, or whether they considered if public disclosure of his behavior would serve the common good.

When a priest is credibly accused of sexual abuse or coercion, Catholics are ordinarily notified, and given the opportunity to come forward if they are aware of other instances of sexual malfeasance. That did not take place in Newark and Metuchen.

Before becoming Bishop of Metuchen, Bootkoski served as McCarrick’s vicar general- a chief advisory role- in the Archdiocese of Newark.

Washington Cardinal Donald W. Wuerl

Of course, questions have also been raised about other bishops who might have known about McCarrick’s apparent proclivities. Cardinal Joseph Tobin succeeded Myers in Newark in 2017, and Bishop James Checchio succeeded Bootkoski in Metuchen the year before. Cardinal succeeded McCarrick directly in Washington in 2006. Did those men have awareness of McCarrick’s alleged penchant for young seminarians?

Sources in Washington say that after news broke in June about McCarrick, Wuerl held separate meetings with seminarians and priests, listening to them and encouraging them to come forward if they had concerns or questions about the cardinal. Wuerl is known to be proactive on child-protection, and pushed insistently for the publication of the Charter in 2002.

Still, it seems virtually impossible to imagine that Wuerl was not informed about the settlements concerning his predecessor. Did he report them to the nuncio? To Pope Benedict, and then to Pope Francis? Was he obliged to accept a Vatican decision on the matter, or did he fail to raise the questions, out of misplaced sympathy for McCarrick or a sense that the cardinal’s behaviour was limited only to consenting adults?

Tobin, who was reported to have been McCarrick’s choice for leadership in Newark, was known to be vigilant about child-protection during his time leading the Redemptorist religious order, and in the Vatican’s office for religious life, but was beset by his own minor scandal in February, after tweeting “Nighty Night, baby. I love you,” in a posting that raised eyebrows, despite the Archdiocese of Newark’s insistence that it was was meant as a private message for his sister.

Still, none of the bishops surrounding McCarrick have been called to comment publicly on what they knew, when they knew it, and what they did about it.

The same questions go for the auxiliary bishops who served under McCarrick in Newark and Washington, the most prominent of whom is Cardinal , now prefect of the Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life at the Vatican. Farrell lived with McCarrick in a Washington apartment, and many have characterized McCarrick as a mentor to the cardinal.

Many Catholics have asked when those bishops will be called to account for their roles, if any, in McCarrick’s situation. But one other American bishop might also face similar questions: Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston.

Father Boniface Ramsey, a priest of New York, says he contacted O’Malley, a close adviser to Pope Francis, in 2015, in order to report allegations of McCarrick’s misconduct with seminarians but did not receive a response, according to .

In the same year, O’Malley was also given a letter from Juan Carlos Cruz, a Chilean victim of sexual abuse, who says he was assured that the cardinal delivered the letter to Pope Francis. That letter detailed allegations against Bishop Juan Barros, who is alleged to have witnessed and participated in sexual abuse perpetrated by Father Fernando Karadima. Bishop Juan Barros of Osorno,

The pope accused Barros’ critics of calumny and detraction, directly, until the letter was leaked to the media in January 2018, and the pope dispatched an investigator to Chile.

That sparked an unprecedented summoning of Chile’s bishops to the Vatican, and a mass resignation from them this May. The pope accepted the resignation of Barros, and several other bishops, in June.

Neither O’Malley nor the Vatican has confirmed whether the pope received the 2015 letter from Cruz, and now O’Malley is reported to have received allegations about McCarrick at the same time. What remains to be clarified is whether O’Malley communicated both sets of allegations to Pope Francis, and they were not acted upon by Francis and the Vatican, or whether the allegations were, for some reason, not communicated to the pope.

While many members of the media seemed to give O’Malley and Pope Francis the benefit of the doubt with regard to the Cruz letter- and, indeed, questions about it went largely unasked once Francis began to act on Chile’s abuse problem- it is unlikely that reporters will fail to ask about two apparent communiques on abuse from O’Malley to the pope in the same year. O’Malley enjoys a sterling reputation on child protection in the Archdiocese of Boston, but if answers are not forthcoming, that reputation may be tarnished by the frequency of quite similar reports

McCarrick is the most prominent American bishop who continued to enjoy a public life even after being accused of abuse-related misconduct or neglect, and the accusations against him are the most grave.

But he is not the only one. Bishops Robert Finn, formerly of Kansas City, and John Nienstedt and Lee Piche, both formerly of Minneapolis-St. Paul, resigned from their positions when it became clear that none had handled allegations of sexual misconduct by priests in accord with Church or civil law.

Piche has largely disappeared from the public eye following his 2015 resignation.

Finn, who was in 2012 convicted of a misdemeanor for failing to report a priest’s possession of child pornography, has mostly retired to serve as a chaplain of religious sisters in Nebraska after his 2015 resignation, though he occasionally appears at public events.

(Full disclosure: In 2016, when Finn moved to Nebraska, I served as communications director for the Diocese of Lincoln. I do not presently have a relationship with Finn.)

Finn and Piche were accused, and Finn was convicted, of gravely mismanaging reports of abuse and misconduct, but were not themselves directly accused of sexual misconduct. Their situations are also evocative of Bishop Phillip Wilson of Adelaide, Australia, who has been convicted of failing to report a sexual abuse claim, but not been officially removed from his position. Those situations, though serious, are distinct from McCarrick’s.

Nienstedt, however, was also accused of making unwanted sexual advances toward priests and seminarians, though he was not accused of the serial misdeeds leveled against McCarrick. In 2013, Nienstedt was also accused of touching a boy on the buttocks, though civil authorities declared in early 2014 that no evidence supports that charge

Former bishop John C. Nienstedt Nienstedt, who maintains his innocence of any charges of sexual misconduct, served initially at a Michigan after resigning in 2015, but left after drawing negative media attention. He has since appeared at California’s Napa Institute and other public events.

While it is unlikely that any of those bishops will again be appointed to leadership positions in the Church, some have asked whether they will face formal Vatican charges. As McCarrick’s long tenure in the Church raises questions about whether bishops have a propensity to protect one another, and whether the Vatican fails to appreciate the significance of sexual misconduct, those questions have taken on particular urgency.

Questions have also been raised about the tenure of Bishop Michael Hoeppner of Crookston, Minnesota. In May 2017, Hoeppner was sued by a diaconal candidate, Ronald Vasek, who says that in 2015 the bishop coerced him into withdrawing a report he had made in 2010 concerning a priest Vasek says abused him in 1971. The lawsuit was settled, Hoeppner maintains his innocence, and the diocese says that a settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing. Nevertheless, the case may now be judged to warrant further scrutiny.

It would be unfair to suggest that bishops fail to report these matters because they find sexual misconduct unobjectionable. While that might be true in some cases, there are a few factors that could also contribute to bishops failing to report the misdeeds of their colleagues.

The first is that bishops are trained to be forgiving and empathetic, and may have a hard time getting past that. Bishops mostly begin their careers as pastors, and that means they spend a great deal of time in confessionals. They learn to be empathetic to penitents, and to emphasize a conversion of life, a change of heart, a change of behaviour, rather than to focus on the administrative or external aspects of justice.

A bishop who hears that a cardinal has had a series of adult sexual partners is likely to feel empathy for a sick and sinning brother, rather than to consider the external implications of those relationships. While bishops are largely now trained to understand the importance of reporting allegations of sexual misbehavior involving children, they may not immediately consider the same issue with regard to relationships involving adults.

Bishops may not immediately remember that a bishop, by virtue of his office, is always in an unbalanced power dynamic when he engages with other Catholics. And, because of the conditioning that comes from the confessional, they might be moved to prayer for the situation, and they might genuinely revile the behavior, without immediately realizing their own responsibility, and ability, to see that the matter is addressed in the external fora of justice. This is the reason why the bishops have elected to involve lay review boards in addressing matters of sexual misbehavior, and if there were failures to report the misdeeds of McCarrick, they demonstrate the need for those boards to be given sufficient information to advise the bishop objectively.

Bishops might also be concerned that objections raised to the Vatican about sexual impropriety on the part of their brothers would go unanswered. That was apparently the case in Chile, where some bishops raised objections to the appointment of Bishop Juan Barros for years, before a media firestorm prompted Vatican action.

There are other bishops who may be reticent to report suspicions or allegations about a brother bishop because of an American ecclesial culture that has been sometimes characterized as having an allergy to conflict. In such a culture, one may feel simply it is “not his place” to raise concerns about a brother.

And there may still be bishops who believe that preventing a scandal is a worthwhile endeavour, without considering the costs of that decision to those who are harmed when a bishop acts immorally. The costs of that decision are borne, most gravely, by those who are directly harmed by acts of abuse on the part of any cleric. Their wounds cry out to God for justice.

But when a bishop behaves with sexual immorality, the effects ripple across his entire diocese. Priests and seminarians who object to that sexual immorality leave quickly, or find themselves marginalized. Those who rise to leadership positions are those who are left: those who are willing to accept the bishop’s sexual immorality, those who are complicit in it, or those who are too naive to notice it.

Those in the first two categories, being willing to accept some rejections of Catholic teaching, are usually also likely to accept other rejections of Catholic teaching. That can be reflected in their pastoral leadership and catechesis, and consequently, an entire diocese can be formed with a theological perspective framed by relativism, tolerance of immorality, or compromise. The effects of a bishop’s sexual immorality can lead to spiritual and catechetical decline across an entire diocese.

It remains to be seen whether the Vatican will address the allegations leveled against Cardinal McCarrick, let alone consider whether others were complicit in his alleged abuse and misconduct. Sources close to the case have told CNA that the formal charges against McCarrick have not yet been made clear, even to those involved.

Some sources have told CNA to expect that McCarrick will die before facing a formal Vatican inquiry. In question is whether, if McCarrick does die before a trial, the related questions will die with him. It also remains to be seen whether McCarrick will be stripped of his title as a cardinal, even without facing a formal trial. There is a precedent for that sanction, and, to many, his case seems to call for it.

But some hope that this moment, combined with sex abuse crises in Chile, Honduras, and India, will be a sea change for the Church. Many Catholics, regardless of theological perspective, are making clear that they expect transparency from ecclesial leaders.

One notable facet of the present call for accountability is that, for the moment, it seems mostly free from ideological division.

When Finn was being investigated for negligence, many conservatives assumed that he was being unfairly maligned by progressives, even before they learned the facts of the case. When Barros of Chile was under suspicion, even Francis blamed the “leftists.” McCarrick was regarded by most as an avowed progressive, but few have seen criticism of him as ideological. The shock, at least now, seems to break the partisan divide.

To be sure, some recent commentators have been quick to reject any correlation between homosexuality in the priesthood and allegations that a bishop engaged in predatory homosexual behavior with subordinates. But the Vatican in 2005 declared directly that those with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” should not be admitted to seminary formation, which seems an authoritative recognition that homosexuality amongst priests can have negative effects. Those arguing otherwise are unlikely to gain much traction, at least at the moment.

It seems unlikely that the momentum of a push for more accountability and transparency will quell before at least some bishops begin to offer their responses. The issue of sexual immorality on the part of bishops is sure to dominate the USCCB’s fall meeting in November, if some dramatic step has not been taken before then. What remains to be seen is whether their responses will satisfy, and whether the Vatican, or the pope directly, will decide to get involved.

In Dallas, in 2002, it was Cardinal McCarrick who expressed the importance of transparency, fidelity, and accountability.

“We will be accountable to make sure we’re on the same page. And this will be monitored, not only by each other, but by this national advisory office and board, and if it turns out that we are not faithful to what we have all agreed, it will be similar to if we’re not faithful in teaching the faith. This will be a delict that we will be sanctioned for,” he said.

“I hope that’s the right answer, but I think that’s the answer that our people expect. That we will take this seriously, and that we will be accountable to do what we promised to do.”