Mark Pattison from Catholic News Service reports the story, including the cardinal's reaction:
Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, retired archbishop of Washington, said June 20 he will no longer exercise any public ministry “in obedience” to the Vatican after an allegation he abused a teenager 47 years ago was found credible. [...]
“While shocked by the report, and while maintaining my innocence,” Cardinal McCarrick said in his statement, “I considered it essential that the charges be reported to the police, thoroughly investigated by an independent agency and given to the Review Board of the Archdiocese of New York. I fully cooperated in the process.” [...]
“My sadness was deepened when I was informed that the allegations had been determined credible and substantiated,” Cardinal McCarrick said.But in the wake of this news, a number of religion-beat reporters are now professing themselves not shocked. Julia Duin at the GetReligion site reports that she had a file on McCarrick a decade ago, when she was the Washington Times religion editor.
Numerous journalists – and Catholics – knew that McCarrick has been accused of this sort of thing for decades and that he cultivated male seminarians for sexual purposes for years. Wednesday’s news was no secret to many of us. It is one of the great untold stories of the religion beat.But Duin, and other journalists at other mainstream outlets, never were able to bring a McCarrick abuse story to publication. Why not? One reason is that the great scandal about the Catholic church has been the scandal of the sexual abuse of minors and the resultant cover-ups. And as Duin writes,
even if there had been sexual activity, these men were consenting adults, right? And the sexual abuse crisis dealt with minors, not with grown men. So if someone complained of being sexually abused as an adult, a diocese didn’t have to report it. Instead, it could pay you to stay quiet.And it seems that there are at least three instances of dioceses which McCarrick led reaching settlements with alleged victims of McCarrick who were abused as adults. But the details of those settlements hadn't been unsealed at the time that Duin was pursuing the story.
And as Duin and Phil Lawler point out, how consensual is it really when a bishop solicits a seminarian? No seminarian can remain a seminarian without his bishop's approval and support; and after he is ordained, the bishop is his boss. As Lawler notes:
The seminarians may have been of legal age, but they were not a bishop’s equals. His position gave McCarrick the opportunity to recruit young men and to silence those who rejected his advances, and he abused a sacred trust.This is the dynamic that helps explain the brick wall run into by reporters. Duin and Rod Dreher, both of whom actively pursued stories about McCarrick at the turn of the millenium and knew other religion writers who were doing the same, suggest that no mainstream media stories were reported because of the difficulty of getting accusers to be anything other than anonymous sources. Here is Dreher:
I never wrote the story about McCarrick, because I could not get anybody to go on the record. That spring, I fielded more than a few calls from Catholic priests from the New Jersey area who had direct personal knowledge of McCarrick’s sexual derring-do with seminarians. They would phone me, tell me what they knew, and then beg me to “do something”! I would tell them that I could do nothing until and unless they provided documents, and/or were willing to put their name to public accusations. Nobody could or would do that.Apparently, the inability to get accusers on the record isn't the only reason that news of McCarrick's alleged misdeeds haven't reached a wide audience until now. Dreher writes that the Vatican knew about accusations against McCarrick: he reports that a delegation of concerned Americans went to Rome to meet in person with church officials about McCarrick's alleged behavior, but the powers that be continued to promote him anyway. Also, it seems that both Dreher and Duin were aware that a New York Times Magazine reporter was working on a McCarrick abuse story a few years ago, but for reasons that neither finds satisfactory, the story died before it got to publication. Journalist Matt Abbott and abuse expert Richard Sipe have been raising the alarm about McCarrick for a number of years, but apparently their reports didn't get traction with the mainstream media. Dreher reprints some of the information provided by Sipe, which apparently came from unsealed settlement agreements between alleged victims and the dioceses of Metuchen and Newark. I found those excerpts difficult to read.
I would have been unaware of any allegations against Cardinal McCarrick if it wasn't for the New York Archdiocese's Independent Review Board, which investigated a 47 year old allegation against McCarrick and found it credible; and if Cardinal Dolan and then Pope Francis hadn't taken the review board's finding seriously and acted accordingly. That review board finding was triggered by an allegation of the sexual abuse of a minor. Based on what I've read, that allegation seems to be the only one from a minor that has been reported in the mainstream media; the other accusations have been from men (seminarians) who were allegedly abused as adults. If that single victim hadn't stepped forward to tell the review board what happened to him 47 years ago, Cardinal McCarrick's public reputation would be intact today.
Way beyond disappointing! Kind of similar to Mafia tactics. You make sure someone won't talk by involving them in the crime, so if they go to the authorities they implicate themselves too. Though as you point out, how consensual could it be given the power and authority differential. Think of the spiritual harm to both parties, could someone ever untangle that from their relationship with God?
ReplyDeleteI am not a religion reporter. I was still an active Catholic when he was in DC. As an ordinary Catholic, with no insider connections, I heard lots of stories about McCarrick and his favorite seminarians. I often wondered why I never saw anything in the press about it, as it must have been pretty common knowledge.
ReplyDeleteHis case is like the Cardinal in Scotland. The seminarians and priests kept their mouths shut because he threatened to derail their careers as priests. It took years before they came forward. O'Brien (Scotland) was in charge in Scotland when the various national churches started invetigating the sexual abuse of minors. He refused to conduct a similar investigation in Scotland. None of his accusers were minors, but were of "legal age" when he abused them. But he may have been protecting friends of his whom he knew preferred boys to young men.
I guess in the US, the victims were willing to accept hush money in order to save their careers.
"I guess in the US, the victims were willing to accept hush money in order to save their careers."
DeleteAnne - why do you think this happened? Who paid whom hush money, and what careers were saved?
I provided links to a half-dozen or so articles in the original post. What instances did you find in them of anyone receiving hush money?
I guess if there were settlements, that means money and keeping quiet.
DeleteStanley, yes. But I'd be surprised if any of the settlements were with active priests serving under McCarrick. I assume they were with former priests or former seminarians.
DeleteJim, I suspect you understand what is meant by "hush" money being used to keep sexual scandals on the part of high-level clerics out of the news. As Stanley pointed out, the polite term is "settlements". Settlements that were kept secret.
DeleteI would guess that those who received the settlements also accepted non-disclosure requirements. This is what happened countless times in the cases of priests molesting kids - the parents were offered cash settlements in return for silence. This happened in the US, it happened in Ireland, and I imagine it happened in many other countries. Since it seems probable that part of the deal was non-disclosure, it is clear that I cannot speak from facts that can be verified, at least not yet. But, taking an educated guess, I would assume that the men who accepted money in exchange for silence most likely had decided that the Roman Catholic priesthood was not a path they wished to continue to pursue. I would also make an educated guess that the men who wanted to continue as priests or seminarians decided to keep quiets because they knew (or were told explicitly) that any whistle blowing would result in an assignment to outer Mongolia. This type of sexual harassment, which Cardinal O'Brien also indulged in, seems not to be an isolated incident, in spite of the secrecy. At least one Polish bishop was removed from office for it, and I believe that two bishops in a row were made to step down in Miami, because of sexually using seminarians. Perhaps Tom can verify that.
The situation is similar to the sexual harassment women have dealt with since forever. Weinstein, Fox News, various actors and news people that were not Fox - a whole long list of public figures used sexual harassment against women who worked for them, and too many women went along with it because their careers - potentially their whole life's work - was at stake. One of my sons studied film in college in LA. Even he was propositioned, offered a job on a production if he would go along. I know of many cases from my own work when the "boss" selected some pretty young thing to be his "special" friend. In ordinary jobs, the women could leave, and some that I knew did, but it was tough on them, leaving a job they liked and having to go through the whole job hunt again. Having to start from zero in accumulating vacation time, in the wait to become vested in a retirement program, etc. It was wrong that they had to leave because of this. Why should young seminarians or priests have to endure sexual harassment in order not to harm their careers in the priesthood?
Anne, thanks - you and I are in accord. I had misunderstood your comment - I thought you were being critical of the victims. Thanks for explaining, I appreciate it.
DeleteThere are my aspects of this story which illustrate why it has been so difficult to deal with sexual abuse in the Church.
ReplyDelete1. The great unwillingness to admit that the proportion of priests who are gay is greater than that of men in the general population.
2. The unwillingness to admit that many heterosexual and homosexual priests break their promises of chastity. Why should that be any less than for married men cheating on their wives?
3. The unwillingness to admit that many heterosexual and homosexual priests exploit their power over adults for sexual purposes. Why should that be any less than men who exploit their power over women in the business world?
4. The unwillingness to admit that there are networks of gay priests who work to promote one another in the Church, and that having sexual relations is part of that bonding.
5. That allegations and story writing about the sexual wrong doings of bishops and priests have often been done by people who are out to get those who are ideologically different.
Like a lot of the sexual wrong doing of politicians and celebrities, this information has been out there circulating in rumors and outside the mainstream media.
I think the present case would not have surfaced if it had been in Newark or D.C. It would not have surfaced if Rome had decided to follow standard practice to treat bishops differently. That a cardinal’s case was judged by a lay review board is a great step forward. I don’t think the story would have surfaced if it were not a minor.
There has certainly been a change in Francis. Is he now willing to have the Church face all the above issues?
Jack, I would add one more "unwillingness" to your list. Actually it is a subscript to #1: the unwillingness to admit that the celibacy requirement has anything to do with skewing this proportion.
DeleteJack - many thanks for that comment.
DeleteYour first and fourth points are pursued by Dreher in this post: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/cardinal-mccarrick-everybody-knew/
Honestly, I wasn't sure what to make of those claims by Dreher, that of the existence of gay networks. I haven't read him a lot, but I perceive that he has axes to grind, including when it comes to the Catholic Church, and I might tend to discount some of his opinions accordingly. But on the other hand, Sipe also calls out gay networks as a concern. And now you do, too. Andrew Greeley also had done so a number of years ago.
Regarding your third point, about priests exploiting their power over adults for sexual purposes, as happens in the business world: Dreher drew what strikes me as an astute comparison, between McCarrick and Harvey Weinstein. In fact he hopes that this will be a #MeToo moment in the church. But I note that Weinstein's victims haven't been treated with universal sympathy by the public. At the risk of misconstruing Anne, I took her comment about McCarrick's victims being bought off with hush money in that light: somewhat like Weinstein's victims who were willing to put up with his abuse so that he might advance their careers.
One more thought regarding "homosexual networks" (the term used by Sipe and Dreher): the very term, at least to my hearing, implies secretiveness but not abuse. I picture the network as a group of men who willingly participate in the activity of the group. But the allegations against McCarrick are from unwilling victims. Or do you suppose that the networks consist of those sorts of dysfunctional, exploitative, victimizing relationships? Are the members unwilling victims? Are these allegations against McCarrick coming from members of the network?
Every paper I ever worked for had top secret knowledge about some prominent citizens that wasn't provable enough to print. I once lost an editor, nice guy, who propositioned a cop in the park. And only a few months later a prominent college official fell to the same cop in the same spot.
ReplyDeleteIn my earlier days, the feeling was that if the behavior was not ongoing there was no point in pursuing it. I think that may have changed. Going back 47 years does seem hard-charging, although that was the New York archdiocese, not the New York media. I once lost an editor, nice guy, who propositioned a cop in the park.
But if the press knows, or sorta knows, this kind of stuff about a clergymen, how does the information evade the Vatican? Custody of the eyes? It begins to appear that his Chilean Waterloo is turning into an alarm clock for Pope Francis, though.
"But if the press knows, or sorta knows, this kind of stuff about a clergymen, how does the information evade the Vatican? "
DeleteRight - I think (or at least I'd like to think) that this sort of thing is the reason, the original reason, that Francis was elected: not to hold synods and challenge the ways of the worldly and powerful, but to clean out the Augean stables around St. Peter's Square.
I don't know if you read the Dreher pieces to which I linked, but one of them includes this passage:
"Innocence? I believe McCarrick is lying, and that he knows he is lying. I have been waiting for this story to break since 2002.
"Back then, I received a tip from a priest who had gone on his own dime to Rome, along with a group of prominent US Catholic laymen, to meet with an official for the Roman Curial congregation that names bishops. It had been rumored at the time that Theodore McCarrick, the Archbishop of Newark, was going to be moved to Washington, DC, and to be made a cardinal. This group traveled to Rome to warn the Vatican that McCarrick was a sexual harrasser of seminarians. The story this priest shared with me was that McCarrick had a habit of compelling seminarians to share his bed for cuddling. These allegations did not involve sexual molestation, but were clearly about unwanted sexual harassment. To refuse the archbishop’s bedtime entreaties would be to risk your future as a priest, I was told.
"Rome was informed by these laymen — whose number included professionally distinguished Catholics in a position to understand the kind of harm this would cause –that McCarrick was sexually exploiting these seminarians, but it did no good. McCarrick received his appointment to the Washington archdiocese in 2000.
"In early 2002, though, the priest who tipped me off wouldn’t go on the record. It would have meant the end of his priesthood, quite possibly. He gave me the name of a couple of medical figures who had been on the same journey. I called one, who confirmed it, but wouldn’t go on the record. I called the other, who gasped when I said it out loud, and who said, “If that were true, then I wouldn’t confirm it for the same reason Noah’s sons covered their father in his drunkenness.”
My recollection is that the years 2000-2002 were years when John Paul II was well into his health decline. I've read that, for many practical purposes, he had stopped governing by that point in his pontificate. The inmates were running the asylum. And then Benedict seemingly didn't have the interest or the ability or the energy to drive reforms.
Even Francis seems to have truly awoken (if he has) to the awfulness of these scandals in the last few months, thanks to the persistence of the Chilean victims.
A fellow physics major eventually went into the seminary and became a parish priest. He said there were two types in the seminary. Jocks and pocketbooks. This was in the early 70's.
ReplyDelete