Update 11/16/2020 10:01 CST - In the comments section below, Jack refers us to a piece by David Gibson on the Commonweal website. Gibson has his own original take, informed not only by the contents of the report but also from his background as a journalist. Gibson has known and covered McCarrick for decades, and is well acquainted with the machinations between the Holy See and the American church. He sees McCarrick as less important a churchman than many others rate him, but also sees him as a dysfunctional actor who learned to operate in a dysfunctional senior clerical culture. Definitely worth a read.
---
On Tuesday, the Vatican released the report of a two-year investigation into the history of former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. We have discussed the disgraced and now defrocked McCarrick's case a number of times in the last couple of years: to see a listing of those previous posts sorted by date posted, click here.
What follows are my own reactions to and thoughts about this week's development.
What is in the report?
Here is Michael Brendan Dougherty's quick-hit summary in National Review:
The scope of the report is rather small and can be reduced to answering three questions: (1) Why did John Paul II make McCarrick an archbishop when Cardinal John O’Connor of New York had warned the pope against this in a letter asserting that McCarrick was a sex abuser? And why did he keep rising? (2) What exactly did Benedict XVI do about McCarrick? (3) Did Francis know?
How does the report answer those three questions?
It's a little complicated. The best synopsis I've seen so far has been supplied by Peter Steinfels at the Commonweal website. His entire piece is well worth reading; if you want to skip to his summary of the report's contents and conclusions, just scroll down to his bullets. My bumper-sticker summary would be:
- The report provides more details of McCarrick's abuse than what has been released so far; Elizabeth Bruenig in the New York Times notes that the report discusses 17 victims whom McCarrick allegedly abused.
- John Paul II, probably abetted by his secretary Stanislaw Dziwidz, used poor judgment in promoting McCarrick and awarding him a red hat, despite some indications (including the intervention by Cardinal O'Connor) that McCarrick was an abuser. McCarrick himself tried to put out the fire started by O'Connor by reaching out to JP II through Dziwidz, and other American churchmen apparently dissembled to help cover up McCarrick's infractions.
- Benedict XVI tried to strike a balanced between discipline and mercy by asking McCarrick, after the latter's retirement as archbishop of Washington, to remove himself from public ministry. McCarrick seems to have ignored the request.
- The report stipulates that, when Francis became pope, he was unaware that his predecessors hadn't already dealt with McCarrick. Accepting that assertion requires that we reject what Archbishop Vigano has claimed: that he had warned Francis about McCarrick. The report states that the investigation was unable to find any evidence to corroborate Vigano's claims. When Vigano made those sensational, unsubstantiated allegations a couple of years back, Francis ordered the investigation which has resulted in the report which we're discussing now.
What should we conclude?
Here are my thoughts, in no particular order:
1. The three popes' roles in the McCarrick affair, as portrayed in the report, ring true: John Paul II had a blind spot about abusive clergy; Benedict was curiously ineffective as a chief executive; and it took Francis too long to come to grips with the need for decisive action toward abusers.
2. The report is devastating in its portrayal of the Holy See as clueless, complacent, ineffectual, tolerant of abusers and hypocritical of sexual activity on the part of men who have made sacred promises of continence. It's difficult to overstate how repellent the hypocrisy is. The church needs leaders who take their sacred promises seriously and try to abide by them.
3. To that point: Francis was chosen as Peter's Successor to reform the cluelessness, the complacency, the corruption etc. He has made some moves, but sweeping reform efforts still haven't come to fruition. Francis has been a wonderful gift to us in many ways, in his spontaneous words and gestures, his reverence for simplicity and poverty, his concern for God's creation and the climate, and in many other ways. But the urgency of enacting reform hasn't receded; it may have become more urgent. Undoubtedly, cleaning out those Augean stables is a Herculean task. We really need Francis to take whatever heroic measures are necessary to clean house.
4. None of the commentary I have seen so far has said anything about accountability. The report names names, and that is something. But I have seen no indication so far that those who enabled and promoted McCarrick will be held accountable. McCarrick is sufficiently old that, even had these scandals not broken, his active ministry might have ended by now, and undoubtedly most of those who enabled him or chose to look the other way are retired themselves, like Benedict, or have died, like John Paul II. Nevertheless, if church or secular laws were broken and prosecution and punishment is possible, it should at least be considered, even if those accused are very old now.
5. This reckoning, such as it is, focuses primarily on the Holy See. I am not aware that any comparable investigation of the American church has been undertaken. The report points to some items about the American church about which more needs to be known. For example; it cites three New Jersey bishops who apparently minimized McCarrick's infractions, and perhaps even lied about them, when the Holy See inquired about him. This cover-up needs to be investigated. Other commentators have noted that there are leaders in the American church with whom McCarrick shared living quarters, and others whose careers McCarrick has helped to cultivate. Surely there also were others who took a young McCarrick under their wings and helped kick-start his rise through the hierarchy. What did McCarrick's friends and associates in the American church know about his alleged misdeeds? In addition, it seems that many victims and their families reached out to various church leaders in the US, asking them to intervene to stop McCarrick. Did any of these leaders respond? What actions were taken?
6. Can church leaders be trusted to hold church leaders accountable? We would have to say the jury is still out. For a snapshot of how conflicts of interest can arise in investigations of bishops, please see Rita Ferrone's acute Commonweal article from last year about the investigation of former Wheeling, WV bishop Michael Bransfield. The investigation of McCarrick is somewhat different than that of Bransfield, in that it was the Holy See investigating McCarrick, whereas the local metropolitan (regional boss) in the US, Archbishop Lori, investigated Bransfield. But the possibilities for conflict of interest are similar. In Bransfield's case, the investigation revealed that Lori, his investigator, was the recipient of monetary gifts from Bransfield - an embarrassing circumstance which Lori sought to have redacted from the final report (he was outed by the Washington Post). For his part, McCarrick's fundraising prowess is the stuff of legend, and it seems he was also a generous giver of gifts to church officials. Even though the McCarrick investigation was conducted by a layperson, he happens to be the attorney who represents the Holy See. In effect, the Holy See has investigated the Holy See. Perhaps that investigation was carried out with scrupulous objectivity and a willingness to let the chips fall where they may. But people are right to be skeptical about the possibility of a conflict of interest. Until the church proves it can hold its leaders accountable, the public will continue to rely on journalists and secular government officials to shine sunlight and enforce justice and accountability.
Thanks for the summary and the bullet points, Jim. I will read the Steinfels article.
ReplyDeleteJust a few of my thoughts. Pope Emeritus Benedict wrote a letter awhile back blaming the abuse crisis on the sexual revolution. But it has been going on much longer than the loosey-goosey modern times. There was an NCR article lately about clerical abuse in historic times, which I can't find now. But it shouldn't be any surprise that it was same old, same old. The thing that was missing, then and now, was focus on the victims, and transparency. At least now they have acknowledged the victims, and made good faith (though imperfect) efforts toward transparency.
One thing that strikes me is the compartmentalization and rationalization that must be necessary to celebrate the sacraments while not in a state of grace. Maybe they viewed it similar to a drunk falling off the wagon; confess it and try to do better next time. But apparently no focus on making amends or restitution to the victims, or maybe deluding oneself that it was consensual and the victim could just go on with his or her life. And no evidence of confessors or spiritual directors holding the offenders accountable; or much worse, blaming the victim for tempting them.
Excellent points, Katherine.
DeleteThere have been 266 popes, and I do not rate Pope St. John Paul II The Great in the top 100. I scandalized some folks the other day by mentioning that, but I know you are not surprised. I do feel it is a necessary prelude if I am going to say -- and I AM going to say -- that JPII lived most of his life under regimes that accused prelates, monks and priests of pedophelia whenever they thought of the Catholic Church or it was a slow news day. So I see no reason to be surprised that when JP heard rumors about Ted McCarrick from Cardinal O'Connor, he ignored them. Been there, heard that. The only caveat I'd have is that since someone with the clout of O'Connor didn't ignore them, JP should have at least given them a second look. But he always acted princely. To read back what we know now into the day when JPII shrugged is false history.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad Peter Steinfels pointed out what I suspected but didn't know enough about to say -- that "everybody" DIDN'T know. I was glad to learn from Peter that the source for all of that is Rod Dreher, who never was a reliable source.
And I am glad that this should lead to -- but won't -- drawing a curtain of modesty over Viganó, his marinated revelations and Life Site news and other outlets.
Vigano has shown himself to be a squirrely little dude.
DeleteSteinfels made a very strong case that few had read the PA Grand Jury report, and that its data did not support its executive summary conclusions. He admits he has not read this report, but rather depends on the summary by a Rome journalist who now works for Pope Francis and says that most of the other journalists are doing the same. The news cycle is making real journalism very difficult
ReplyDeleteThis report was prepared by an American lawyer who represents the Vatican, obviously just as biased in the Vatican’s direction as the prosecutor in PA was in the opposite direction. Obviously this is not an independent unbiased report.
Nevertheless its length brings to light a lot more details that enables one to begin to make some judgments, e.g. what did JP2 know and when did he know it.
Obviously he knew all the accusations, and that many people like O’Connor felt that McCarrick should not be appointed to high positions, and that he had in fact followed their advice for awhile. Why did he change his mind?
I don’t think his Polish background explains that. Two other explanations come to mind. I read once that someone very familiar with JP2 said that JP2 believed he was infallible long before he became pope. The other more likely explanation is the money trail. In both this case and that of the Legionnaires JP2 ignored accusations against major fund raisers.
My conclusions from all this is that we should not be in the business of canonizing recent Popes. I have no doubt that God has forgiven most if not all popes of their sins, but we simply should not be promoting their cult. That is why I never refer to JP2 or even John23 as saints. The cult of a pope reeks too much of the ancient Roman practice of deifying their emperors!
The report reinforces for me another long practice of regarding pastors, bishops and popes for what they are, namely church politicians who have all the faults of civilian politicians. The governance of the church as well as the making of civil political decisions includes a huge amount of unsavory business. We should always be on our guard in our local parishes, dioceses as well as in Rome.
"The cult of a pope reeks too much of the ancient Roman practice of deifying their emperors!"
DeleteThat is such an illuminating analogy, I'll never forget it
Didn't there used to be a rule (maybe it was an informal one) that people weren't to be started along the path of canonization until they had been dead at least 50 yeats? And I do remember that there used to be a position known as "devil's advocate", whose job it was to advance all the reasons why someone shouldn't be declared a saint. They should bring those things back.
ReplyDelete"yeats" should be years.
DeleteI remember something about 50 years. That ought to apply in civil society, too. At least the honoree should be dead, a point former New Jersey Gov. Brendan Byrne made out loud when they decided to put his name on a sports/music area. Several business schools, I believe, had to rename themselves after the whole world found out about their benefactors' contribitions to the Great Recession.
DeleteThe devil's advocate went awat during the reign of guess who. Yes. The theory was that a more nuanced approach than pro-con is needed in saint-making. So now they go for in-depth biography. Kenneth Woodward wrote a good book on the subject, oh, like 30 years ago, called "Making Saints."
John Paul knocked down the criteria for beatification from two miracles to one, and did the same for canonization. In 1983, he reduced the amount of time required between a person’s death and the start of their canonization process to five years from 50.
Deletehttps://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/14/world/europe/john-paul-vatican.html
Read David Gibson's take on the report in Commonwealth
ReplyDeletehttps://www.commonwealmagazine.org/double-agent
one footnote has stuck in my mind, though it has drawn little attention in all the post-publication commentary—the one explaining that after McCarrick became bishop of the Diocese of Metuchen in 1981, his “rising profile drew the attention of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and even the KGB.” Yes, a KGB agent posing as a United Nations diplomat sought out McCarrick, who did not initially realize the man was a spy. The FBI alerted McCarrick to the Russian’s real identity and tried to recruit McCarrick as a “counter-intelligence asset” who would befriend the Soviet agent and relay intelligence to the Americans and disinformation to the Soviets. The FBI was persistent, and McCarrick was intrigued. He wrote to the Vatican’s representative to Washington at the time, Archbishop Pio Laghi, who “thought that McCarrick should ‘not be negative’ about the possibility of serving as an FBI asset and described McCarrick in an internal note as someone who ‘knows how to deal with these people and be cautious’ and who was ‘wise enough to understand and not be caught.’” It’s not clear whether McCarrick acted on the FBI’s proposal, but what the rest of the report makes clear is that the FBI, the KGB, and the Vatican all recognized something in McCarrick that made him a natural for either spycraft or the clerical culture of the Catholic hierarchy. Those two worlds could be remarkably similar. Indeed, the report often reads like a George Smiley Soviet-era spy novel (a comparison Villanova theologian Massimo Faggioli often makes).
Maybe McCarrick did become a double agent, and JP2 knew and appreciated it and gave him D.C. as a reward!!!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteProbably the public soul searching in recent years is good for the Church, but it will take a long time for it to effect real change.
ReplyDeleteHaving worked some in "crisis communication," I can only observe that the first human response to crimes and misdemeanors is to prevaricate, rationalize, and lie. People only look for remedies only after they realize that "hide and lie" doesn't work.
I would also argue that the hiding away of sin in the confessional and handing out penances that never have anything to do with remediating the sin perpetuate the Catholic m.o. of hiding misdeeds and sweeping them away with rote formulae and maybe a "just don't do it again."
I long ago separated the Church from the idiots in charge of it here on earth.
I guess some people do see confession as a "get out of jail free" card. They must have had different nuns than I did. It was drilled into me that a dishonest confession or one without sincere contrition was lying to the Holy Spirit, and worse than no confession at all. I was scared to go to confession when I was a kid, and even now have to get myself psyched.
DeleteI find Confession artificial and dry. Having come to it as an adult and having a lifelong skepticism about clerical authority, I expect we have had vastly different experiences in the confessional.
DeleteA lot defends on who you go to for Confession. It's even better to have a spiritual adviser than a confessor.
DeleteI don't even know what spiritual direction is other than that you have to pay for it at pricey retreats.
DeleteMy point isn't my personal problem with Confession but to question whether clerics have used the confessional to excuse crimes.
No retreat. No price. You just have to find one, preferably with the kind of training that fits you, to talk to. Like... talk to, as opposed to in-and-out of the box. I imagine you don't have many prospects where you are. In the city I am in short driving distances of about six Catholic churches, and you don't even have to meet in a church. But, as I say, your choices are probably limited and a bad spiritual advisor is worse than no s.a.
DeleteGlad it's free where you are. The options here are indeed limited to retreat centers, and it costs $$ to talk to one of their gurus, walk in their healing maze, etc.
DeleteAt the Benedictine retreat house/yvisitor center near us, people are welcome to come in, walk the stations of the cross around their lake, attend their Masses or go to reconciliation, talk to one of the monks informally, all free of charge. It would cost to have regularly scheduled spiritual direction.
DeleteWhen I've had formal spiritual direction (I'm sort of "between directors" at the moment, a temporary situation which has been running for the better part of six or seven years now), I paid for it. It was something along the lines of $40-$50 per one hour session.
DeleteI am not certain that a spiritual director is absolutely necessary (although deacons around here are expected to have one), but the idea of a Christian community is that we provide a network of support for one another, and that network of support should include some founts of wisdom. I daresay we're at the ages now where younger people should be looking to us for some of that wisdom. (And they would be well-served by doing so!)
To my way of thinking, the sacrament of reconciliation is a separate thing. I actually prefer going to a complete stranger and hiding behind the privacy screen.
Yes, spiritual direction is about half of what a psychotherapy costs per hour here. Several of the spiritual directors in Lansing are also family therapists, and my guess is that they charge the same for both services.
DeleteTalk therapy stopped working for me after my mother died. I went once due to recurring nightmares and started in on the litany of things I wanted to "work on," and started laughing uncontrollably because it all sounded so banal.
I think spiritual direction would probably go something like that for me at this point in my life.
I went back to AlAnon for awhile just to listen and to pray with those still dealing with the godawful messes their addicted loved ones are making of everyone's lives.
When the nightmares stopped, I switched to free sources of solace: knitting to calm my nerves, reading to keep my mind going, and prayer. I read a line in a book this morning in which a character talks about the fact that Unitarians don't kneel, but she kneels anyway and says "the oldest and best prayer--'Mercy!'" Can't argue with that.
To bring this back to the original topic: If the church hierarchy turned its thoughts to "mercy!" in confronting the child abuse crisis--mercy for itself for overlooking the problem, mercy on the perps as they go through the criminal justice system, and mercy on the victims--perhaps things would be different.
The deacons here are supposed to have spiritual direction too. But like you, K has been "between" for several years. He used to have a priest, but he (the priest) got transferred out of the area, and besides, priests are so busy it's hard to find a time that works for both. K used to just give a free-will offering for that. Maybe an informal peer support network among the deacons themselves would pass for spiritual direction.
DeleteMy comment was directed to Jim, I think I posted it the same time as Jean did.
DeleteJim, if you prefer to go to confession to a stranger and hide behind a screen, what is the point of going at all?
DeleteYour idea of seeking out guidance and wisdom from someone in your community - which can include friends who live thousands of miles away - makes much more sense. Not many priests are gifted homilists and even fewer are gifted confessors. I received what one might call informal spiritual direction in my centering prayer group. I learned from every person in the group, which broke up several years ago as members retired, moved away etc. I miss that group, but I learned from them about many other resources for spiritual guidance. I have also received unofficial spiritual direction from a very wise and insightful (and spiritual) lifelong friend, who has also served as a “confessor” at times.
By seeking out confessors who are strangers, as many do, it seems that confession to some may simply be satisfying some kind of requirement in a pro forma way.
Re the younger people - I feel less and less qualified to impart “wisdom” to the young the older I get. I continue to learn how little I know. I have come to understand how little I understand. Actually, I often find more wisdom among the young than I do in the too often calcified thinking of the older generations.
Anne, I doubt Jim had you and me in mind when he talked about older folks being mentors to Our Catholic Youth. :-)
DeleteJean - as usual, I suspsect you are right.
Delete;)
I am skeptical of both frequent confession and regular spiritual direction.
DeleteOriginally the sacrament of reconciliation was public and included public penance, e.g. people entered the roles of the penitents at the beginning of Lent , were reconciled on the Wednesday of Holy Week and received communion on Holy Thursday.
When the church went to private confession, which was derived from the monastic practice of spiritual direction, it was generally once a year, i.e. one’s Easter duty.
The practice of frequent confession is about only a century old and arose with the practice of frequent communion. When I was young , before Vatican II, it was largely mechanical, the recitation of conventional sins (white lies, impure thoughts, gossiping, etc) and did not involve spiritual direction.
Regular spiritual direction has the same problems as regular psychological counseling .
A psychologist friend calls it the “silting effect.” He views counseling as a temporary measure designed to help people with difficult issues. Unfortunately what happens is that some people come back again and again. Eventually one’s practice becomes filled with people who have become dependent upon the therapist.
A spiritual director has told me of the same problem. Again the ideal should be assistance to someone facing major life decisions. The Ignatian 30 day retreat was intended to make major decisions like a vocation. I did find a week of retreat with a woman spiritual director to be very helpful at the time when I had left academia and began working in the public mental health system.
Long term therapy and long term spiritual direction both present challenges to maintaining boundaries under conditions of great intimacy. Those are not merely sexual but include abuse of power by the therapist or spiritual director. Remember most sexual abuse is an abuse of power.
Thanks for sharing your perspective, Jack. It supports what I have suspected about the potential downside of both regular therapy and spiritual direction. And confession. I have never undergone therapy - tempted a few times - because I have observed more downsides among friends and family than success stories - therapy for years and years. In one or two cases, therapy for decades. So even if interested I would have no idea how to find a “good” therapist. Same problem with spiritual direction. Confession- the Anglican philosophy makes more sense than the RC approach (to me) - All may, some should, none must. Confession is available to those who seek it - very few, and very rarely in practice.
DeleteJack, interesting what you say about people becoming dependent on the therapist. And you are right that in the Middle Ages, the common people did not partake in the sacraments more than a few times per year.
DeleteThe every-Sunday Eucharist is fairly recent in the Episcopal Church, and private confession is still rare and only for grave situations. The public confession and absolution just prior to the Eucharist covers it for most of us. Deathbed anointing rites were very rare.
I suppose you could argue that this mitigates against scrupulosity and "dependence" on the priest. The thinking is that you and your friends and family would be doing the praying for most of these things, which is why there is a BCP with all the prayers needed for these purposes in it.
Our old RCC and Episcopal priests used to emphasize family prayers and intentions.
People have mentioned infrequent reception of Communion as having been the norm prior to about a hundred years ago. Which is only partially true. In the early church the norm would have been reception with every celebration of the Eucharist, unless you were in some kind of dire state of sin. I think the infrequency came about as Mass morphed into more of a spectator event, or even just a physically present event, in which you prayed your own devotions. And there were later problems such as Jansenism, with emphasis on our sinfulness and unworthiness. Popes in the last 150 years or so have encouraged frequent Communion, especially starting with Pius X, who lowered the age of first Communion. I am very grateful for the return to the original custom of frequent reception.
DeleteConfession/Reconciliation is a whole other subject and I think there is room for our individual takes on how we wish or don't wish to participate in it.
Catholic Encyclopedia
DeleteIt should be noted that in the early Church and in the patristic ages, the faithful communicated, or at any rate were expected to communicate, as often as the Holy Eucharist was celebrated . They received even oftener, since it was the custom to carry away the Sacred Elements and communicate at home This was done especially by hermits, by dwellers in monasteries without priests, and by those who lived at a distance from any church
Strange to say, it was in the Middle Ages, "the Ages of Faith", that Communion was less frequent than at any other period of the Church's history. The Fourth Lateran Council compelled the faithful, under pain of excommunication, to receive at least once a year The Poor Clares, by rule, communicated six times a year; the Dominicanesses, fifteen times; the Third Order of St. Dominic, four times. Even saints received rarely: St. Louis six times a year, St. Elizabeth only three times.
The teaching of the great theologians, however, was all on the side of frequent, and to some extent daily, Communion . Various reformers, Tauler, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Vincent Ferrer, and Savonarola, advocated, and in many instances brought about, a return to frequent reception. The Council of Trent expressed a wish "that at each Mass the faithful who are present, should communicate" (Sess. XXII, chap. vi).
And the Catechism of the council says: "Let not the faithful deem it enough to receive the Body of the Lord once a year only; but let them judge that Communion ought to be more frequent; but whether it be more expedient that it should be monthly, weekly, or daily, can be decided by no fixed universal rule"
While the teaching of the Church in favor of frequent communion was clear, it really was not the practice in most places for many probably most centuries except for some people who tried to recover the original practice of the Church. We can thank Pope Pius X for really restoring the practice of frequent even daily communion and for bringing the age of reception down to the age of reason
It seems that the decision to go to confession with a priest - or to not go - is partly a function of personality, like so much else in religious belief and practice. I was raised like Katherine and Tom, but I left the confessional behind as a young adult. So my experience when young, including as a young adult in college, caused me to look at confession more as Jean does even though I did not become Catholic as an adult convert as she did. . I share her scepticism of clerical authority and question the church’s claim that people must use a man as an intermediary for absolution instead of confessing directly to God. Or perhaps to another person chosen for their gifts in helping people see themselves with more honesty than is the norm. Priests are not needed for this, although there are rumors that a few decent confessors are out there who wear clerical collars. I never met one though. I agree with Tom - a good spiritual director may be helpful, but formal confession often is not.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course Jean is dead right about this the hiding away of sin in the confessional and handing out penances that never have anything to do with remediating the sin perpetuate the Catholic m.o. of hiding misdeeds and sweeping them away with rote formulae and maybe a "just don't do it again."
I read the Commonweal article by David Gibson that Jim links in his update. This bit struck me: "McCarrick was the overeager nerd the jocks pick on—until they need him to do their homework. It was a dysfunctional dynamic that created the space for McCarrick to survive, and even thrive."
ReplyDelete