More on McCarrick: "It can never happen again" - More Updates

Update 7/31/2018 9:24 pm: A few more updates are down at the bottom of the post; please scroll down to see them.

Update 7/30/2018 4:49 pm: Michael J O'Loughlin, writing in America, provides a round-up of American episcopal reaction so far to the allegations against McCarrick and his resignation.  At this point it's a fairly thin round-up, consisting of written statements from three bishops, some comments made in a radio interview by McCarrick's successor in the Washington DC archdiocese, Cardinal Wuehrl, and a couple of statements from others who are not bishops.  We may hope that the list grows in the coming days.  Among the items O'Loughlin highlights is a letter from Bishop Edward Scharfenberger of the Albany (NY) Diocese to his priests.  The letter hits some good notes and is worth a read for those who are interested in the reaction of church leaders.

-----

Sunday afternoon I returned from a weekend away, removed the shrink wrap from the Sunday edition of my local suburban newspaper, and read the words quoted in the title of this post.  Those words, from Commonweal contributing editor John Gehring, were quoted in that day's front page news article.  Headline: "Cardinal resigns amid sex abuse claims."

The article, by the Washington Post's Julie Zauzmer and Chico Harlan, reports new developments in the story of multiple accusations of abuse against retired Washington DC Cardinal Theodore McCarrick:

The former archbishop of Washington, accused of sexually abusing adults and minors for decades, resigned from the College of Cardinals on Saturday, becoming the first cardinal in history to step down due to sexual abuse allegations and magnifying the abuse crisis that Pope Francis is grappling with around the globe.

Gehring's words were prompted by reflecting on how McCarrick, who has been trailed by whispers and rumors of abuse for decades, was nevertheless able to ascend to the rarefied heights of the church hierarchy.  Here is more Gehring:

Most Catholics, including myself, are just sickened by the fact that it seems like so much was known about his behavior, and he still climbed the ranks of the church. He never should have been made a cardinal.

Last month, we had occasion here at NewGathering to discuss McCarrick.  At that time, the story seemed to be in two parts:

1. An accusation of sexual abuse of a minor, which allegedly took place while McCarrick was a diocesan priest in the New York archdiocese, had recently been deemed credible by the archdiocese's independent review board.  The archdiocese consulted with the Vatican, which removed McCarrick from active ministry.  McCarrick claimed he had no recollection of the abuse incident but didn't contest the Vatican's decision
2. In addition to that allegation of abuse of a minor, multiple instances of abuse of young (but not legally minor) seminarians have now been reported.  The diocese of Metuchen and the the archdiocese of Newark, both of which had been episcopal way stations for McCarrick on his journey to Washington DC and a red hat, had settled with accusers over the years.  Religion-beat reporters were aware of other allegations of abusing seminarians but had been unable to obtain the confirmation necessary to report those stories in mainstream media outlets  

During the last month, there have been several additional developments:

• Another allegation of abusing a minor has surfaced
• Several additional allegations of abusing adult males have come to light
• And now, McCarrick has tendered his resignation from the College of Cardinals, and Francis has accepted it

The WaPo story has more details on the specific accusations.  I'd rather not have to retype them here - they don't make for pleasant writing or reading.

What is next?  Here are Zauzmer and Harlan:

Pope Francis ordered McCarrick to remain in seclusion, and in prayer, until a church trial considers further sanctions.

The blockbuster part of that sentence is the phrase "church trial".  The church already has provisions for prosecuting abusive bishops, but the process hasn't been invoked very often.  And few or none  has been has high-ranking as Cardinal McCarrick.

This news of McCarrick's resignation is the culmination of a couple of weeks of news reporting and commentary around the accusations.  Here is a quick roundup of some of the stories:

Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Boston, who chair's Francis's sex abuse commission, spoke publicly on Tuesday about the McCarrick situation.  In reference to the cases we discussed here at NewGathering last month, O'Malley stated,

These cases and others require more than apologies. They raise up the fact that when charges are brought regarding a bishop or a cardinal, a major gap still exists in the Church’s policies on sexual conduct and sexual abuse. While the Church in the United States has adopted a zero tolerance policy regarding the sexual abuse of minors by priests we must have clearer procedures for cases involving bishops. Transparent and consistent protocols are needed to provide justice for the victims and to adequately respond to the legitimate indignation of the community. The Church needs a strong and comprehensive policy to address bishops’ violations of the vows of celibacy in cases of the criminal abuse of minors and in cases involving adults.

Catholic church reporter and commentator Robert Mickens, writing in the Washington Post (h/t Jim McCrea), wrote that the institutional church's reluctance to be open and supportive about the homosexuality of so many of its clergy has created a dysfunctional environment which has enabled abusers like McCarrick:

[L]et me be very clear: psychologically healthy gay men do not rape boys or force themselves on other men over whom they wield some measure of power or authority.  However, we are not talking about men who are psychosexually mature. And yet the bishops and officials at the Vatican refuse to acknowledge this. Rather, they are perpetuating the problem, and even making it worse, with policies that actually punish seminarians and priests who seek to deal openly, honestly and healthily with their sexual orientation.

Gehring, this time writing in Commonweal, also makes the point that homosexual priests who are faithful to their vows should not be subjected to a witch hunt - but observes that there are signs that the hunt nevertheless is getting organized.

Rev. Thomas Reese, SJ of Religion News Service notes that the church already has a zero tolerance policy for the sexual abuse of minors, but simple and consistent standards don't currently exist for violations of vows of celibacy with consenting adults - although Reese also questions whether consent can truly to be said to be present when a bishop hits on a seminarian.  Reese urges consultation and discussion to develop appropriate policies:

The church needs a frank discussion of these issues with input from the laity. Sex between a priest and adult can be more than simply a violation of celibacy. It can also be a violation of professional ethics. With the advice of laity with expertise in these areas, the church needs to adopt best practices and hold itself to the highest standards. The church needs the help of laity not only in developing standards but also in enforcing them. No profession, including the clergy, is good at policing itself.

Paul Moses in Commonweal takes up the theme of the secretiveness of adult clerical sexual abuse in the church, noting that the church's approach to priest assignments is a composite of employment practices and sacramental theology.  Moses discusses the case of Robert Hoatson, a former priest who was subject to harassment both as a minor and as an adult seminarian, and who was retaliated against by church authorities for testifying about it before a legislative committee.  Moses asks:

But is [sacramental theology] meant to be used to stop a priest from calling for bishops to be held accountable for enabling crimes? The First Amendment rights for freedom of religious practice make it difficult to get an answer to that question in court.

Meanwhile, from the conservative side of the aisle, Philip Lawler, writing at First Things' Web Exclusives blog, asks some pointed questions about what other American bishops knew about McCarrick as he rose through the ranks of the American church:

By the year 2000, when McCarrick was named archbishop of Washington, many American bishops had received personal letters from some of the young men McCarrick had approached. A delegation of influential Catholics had traveled to Rome to warn Vatican officials about the scandal. Though no one had legal proof, everyone interested in the question had, at the very least, serious suspicions. Why would the Catholic hierarchy promote someone who was even suspected of homosexual predation?

And Michael Brendan Dougherty, over at National Review, issues a blistering indictment of church officials.  If your primary emotion in response to the McCarrick situation is anger, you may find Dougherty's entire piece an exercise in catharsis.

Update 7/31/2018 9:24 pm:  Three more items that may be of interest to NewGathering readers:

1.  James Martin, at America: Why would a priest or seminarian not report sexual harassment by a superior?  Martin offers six reasons, most of which struck me as pretty insightful of human nature.   Understandably, Martin, who is a religious-order priest, offers reasons that are especially salient to  one who lives in a religious community.  Here is one example:

Unlike workplace harassment of the sort reported by those in #MeToo movement, priests and religious may not only work with but live with the people they are accusing. (In the case of a monastery, it might be someone you will live with your entire life: Monks take vows of “stability.”) Sometimes, victims of harassment or abuse also work and live with the religious authorities responsible for taking action—in a seminary, rectory, chancery or religious community.

Those insights into human nature include human fallibility: Martin notes that an abuse accusation generates a mountain of work and unpleasantness for the leaders charged with acting on the accusation, and so there is a tendency for leaders to seek to duck, minimize and discourage accusations.

It's worth pointing out that McCarrick is not a member of a religious order, and the allegations of his abusive behavior are not connected with religious-order life.  But seminaries are quasi-religious-order environments, with the men living in fraternal community, isolated from the surrounding secular community, gathering daily for communal prayer and meals, collaborating closely with one another in study and work, and so on.  It's not difficult to see that the nature of seminary life, both isolated and communal, opens up possibilities for someone like McCarrick to exploit.

Not incidentally, Martin also reports in the article that he is himself a victim of abuse.  I don't know whether Martin has revealed this previously or not.  It's a courageous thing for him to write.

2.  Christopher Tollefson at First Things writes in an open letter to his local bishop (Robert Guglielmone of the diocese of Charleston, SC) that he will withhold all contributions to diocesan fundraisers

until I am convinced by his public actions and witness that he is zealously seeking the creation of an independent investigation into the failings of the American hierarchy in regard to Theodore McCarrick’s sexual misconduct. I expect him to seek as well the removal from office of any bishops judged by such an investigation to have behaved negligently or worse. 

Tollefson is seeking a radical - as in root and branch - uprooting of leadership, sufficient to address the scope and scale of the problem that has been revealed by the revelations about McCarrick.

3.  Another shoe, perhaps a good deal heavier than the McCarrick news, may be about to drop.  The Philadelphia Inquirer reports (h/t Rod Dreher) that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has approved the release, sometime in August, of the results of a statewide grand jury investigation into clerical sexual abuse in six Pennsylvania dioceses, including Pittsburgh.  The decision is a little complicated: some current and former clergy apparently had filed a lawsuit to prevent their being named in the report, claiming that their due-process rights would be violated, and it seems the court agreed to hold further hearings on that issue, so the names of a few of the 300+ clergy in the report will be redacted, pending further hearings on the due-process questions.  Even so, the report will undoubtedly be a bombshell.  The court characterized the report as documenting abuse by over 300 "predator priests".

Overall, it seems that the McCarrick revelations from last month has been the equivalent of tossing a live hand grenade into a bomb warehouse - not only has last month's detonation caused damage on its own, but it now seems to be igniting much larger explosions.  This is shaping up to be the worst time in the church for sexual-abuse scandals in  the last 10 years or more.  Quite a few of the bishops and cardinals who met in Dallas in 2002 have since moved on to other posts, retired or died; arguably this is a new generation of church leadership now facing issues which they may not personally have created but which they will now be expected to address promptly, energetically, comprehensively and transparently - and perhaps sacrificially for those who have been complicit in it.   Martin notes that it is hard enough being a bishop without having to fix sex-abuse scandals.  Let us pray that our bishops are equal to the task that now confronts them.