AmericanPapist Comments
Heaven help us!
I dont't buy this story. I would be very surprised if this would true. I'm sure conservatives are happy to hear this. McCarrick is a great priest and prince of the church. I admire him.
Okay, J, fine, but I don't see how anyone can reach a conclusion pro or con at this point. The allegations are plausible, and an offer a proof accompanied them. One can argue prudence of the approach, I grant.
Sipe says he has evidence. Let's hope those who have the knowledge will have the courage to come forward. Pray, even.
Cardinal McCarrick is our former ordinary in Arch of Washington who ordained me to transitional diaconate & priesthood. I hope this is not true. The only thing I can do is pray for him. How sad.
I'd be more surprised if this were not true. The faithful need to wake up to the fact of a hierarchy riddled with homosexuality. If the cover-ups to date have not convinced them, however, they are so in denial it may be futile. People got all excited when the pope had the courage to say pedophiles just can't be priests? The the Church is ashamed? These were 'amazing' statements according to the media. That says so much...
I have heard this said for years. Usually linked to some beach house somewhere. If it were true, one would think it would have come to the surface before now.
Here is a side angle to consider:
Isn't the timing funny? The MSM might have really ran with this during a Papal visit. One would expect this right before the visit, not right after.
As for the accusation, if he has evidence let him supply it.
Just from looking at them, I would say 50% of the U.S. Bishops are homosexual. Regardless, I have heard stories about McCarrick over the years and I know Sipe has a list on his website of orientation of selected U.S. Bishops. I'll give you the link.
http://www.richardsipe.com/Click...entation-
4.html
Geez. I simply don't get it.
Note that a bunch of the heterosexual bishops are dead! If half this proves to be true, it will only reinforce the priesthood as a homosexualist club.
So if you're name is not on that list one is heterosexual. How can one really tell considering all of those men took a vow of celibacy. If one is going to make comments about the bishops why not make a comment on all the bishops not just a select few.
"The List"
I can't speak for its accuracy as to sexual orientation, but I can say that, as of today, at least, retired Providence, RI Bishop Louis Gelineau is very much alive.
So, if the list was accurate on August 1, 2006, and if Bishop Gelineau was, indeed dead on that date, it seems to me that there's a much bigger story here . . .
I hate to even jump into this fray and it was truly troubling to look at this list (however accurate or inaccurate it may be). However my former Bishop Thomas Dupre of Springfield MA definitely disgraced the priesthood by covering up sexual abuse, and then abandoned his flock the night before the local paper was to release a damning story of his own sexual abuses. He's now at St. Luke's in MD getting "cured."
Whether it is true or not is irrelevant, but the public spreading of such allegations is VERY PROBLEMATIC.
Calumny - the unjust damaging of the good name of another by imputing to him a crime or fault of which he is not guilty. The sin thus committed is in a general sense mortal, just as is detraction.
Detraction -- the unjust damaging of another's good name by the revelation of some fault or crime of which that other is really guilty or at any rate is seriously believed to be guilty by the defamer. Detraction in a general sense is a mortal sin, as being a violation of the virtue not only of charity but also of justice.
Enough already.
While I agree you can't conclude anything one way or the other, like so many others, I also agree that this Sipe guy needs to put up or shut up. That he's speaking for priests because they fear reprisals is a cop-out. McCarrick's homosexuality has been known for decades, and yet the Vatican saw fit to promote him not once but twice? I'm quite skeptical on this, and evidence to support the allegations is indeed necessary.
Looking at that list, how can you be "heterosexual/bisexual"? I haven't delved into the literature on the subject, but my understanding of sexual orientation is that you're either straight, bi, or gay. So I guess I learned something new today. Again, this guy better have a helluva lot of evidence to back his claims.
Sad. If true, then it doesn't say much about the Church's "vetting" process. Tom
I am not a fan of McCarrick, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Actually, Sipes' rumor is not new. Paul Dinter in "The Other Side of the Altar" accuses the cardinal of impropriety if not crime.
But, Dinter has an agenda. He left the priesthood to marry and supports of leftist causes.
J:
Admitting that you admire McCarrick reflects badly on your judgment.
McCarrick was a signatory of the "Land o' Lakes" declaration, a charter document of the dissenting church in America. The Vatican should have used that list of signatories as a blacklist. McCarrick should never have been made a bishop.
I've heard for years that McCarrick is gay. (By "gay," I mean homosexual and unchaste.)
Aside from any evidence that Sipe has, McCarrick's record as a dissenter does nothing to create doubt about the rumors and Sipe's claim.
In 2004, McCarrick was given a letter by Cardinal Ratzinger to deliver to the U.S. bishops, precisely because they were deliberating about a policy statement on whether or not to obey Canon 915. McCarrick came back from Rome, concealed the existence of Ratzinger's letter, and LIED to the assembled bishops about what Ratzinger's position was.
The letter was leaked to the newspapers, once it was realized in Rome that McCarrick had lied.
Needless to say, Ratzinger came down AGAINST disobedience to Canon 915, and AGAINST giving Communion to pro-abortion "Catholics."
Having been lied to by McCarrick, the bishops decided FOR disobedience to Canon 915, and FOR giving Communion to pro-abortion politicians.
I call what McCarrick did Pro-Abortion Activism.
Even if I had never heard all the previous reports of McCarrick's sodomy, his pro-abortion activism would dispose me to believe Sipe's report, simply because McCarrick's pro-abortion activism is PROOF of moral turpitude.
So does this kangaroo court embrace hearsay, Fr. Joe?
Sipe may or may not have any evidence of activities, but a perusal of his website shows that his judgments and opinions are theologically in error and I don't trust him.
McCarrick will be the Commencement speaker here at Notre Dame when I graduate in a few weeks . . .
Domer, just don't drop the soap around him and you should be fine. LOL
Teddy-Mac is a dirty old man. Fr. Joe is right about him, he's as slippery as any DC politician.
Sidonius Apollinaris:
This isn't any kind of court, kangaroo or otherwise.
McCarrick's pro-abortion activism isn't a matter of hearsay. It's a matter of public record. He was told that pro-abortion politicians must be denied Communion--by Ratzinger. McCarrick proceeded to lie, and told his brother bishops that Ratzinger had said it was a matter of each bishop's option.
The bishops, of course, should have known McCarrick was lying, because "Ratzinger"'s position was opposed to Canon Law and Catholic moral theology. But most of them wanted to be deceived, and let off the hook.
McCarrick also lied by concealing the letter from Ratzinger.
So, as I said, in view of the documented, public pro-abortion (pro-Kerry) activism of McCarrick, the substantial and repeated reports of sodomy are certainly credible. I know that if a PRIEST were reported to have engaged in the same activity, by the same number of witnesses, he'd have been laicized long ago.
The impunity McCarrick enjoys is precisely the kind of perk that men strive for in striving to become bishops.
Joe,
The "kangaroo court" reference was just rhetorical. But I'm glad that you've finally illuminated this elusive rhetorical device to discover that we're not actually in a court. Now I can finally become a raving bigot like you.
You did use hearsay. You said, "I've heard for years that McCarrick is gay. (By "gay," I mean homosexual and unchaste.)." This is the spitting image of hearsay. Neither does "the substantial and repeated reports of sodomy are certainly credible" provide use with any more evidence than "I heard x, y, and z..." Do you have some documentation to proffer? Some evidence, perhaps? There appears to be none.
You commit libel. But these sorts of cheap tricks are hallmarks of your style of discourse. Such bitter vitriol is best left at home. To paraphrase an old adage, and I dare say that it was written with you in mind, it would be better for you to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to say something and prove it.
You should peddle elsewhere your hate, racism, irrelevancy, and inability to conduct yourself in an intelligent manner.
The story of McCarrick is not new. It's been out there for several years.
In about 2002 Cardinal George was in Ann Arbor and I was one of several members of the press invited to a small press conference where he took questions. He was asked about "the scandals" and acknowledged that there were all sorts of accusations coming out about priests, and he said that nearly all of them were TRUE.
That's been my experience as a working journalist in the Catholic (editor for 10 years of Catolic weekly newspapers) These stories are usually true. What's difficult is getting victims to speak about it publicly.
I am unaware that McCarrick has denied that he slept with seminarians or priests. It would be helpful to know if he's denied it.
Regarding the question of whether it was prudent for Sipes to go public with this accusation, one must realize that the Catholic hierarchy lacks both the will and the capacity to police itself on these matters. The media deserves credit for the removal of countless child molesters in recent years. Virtually everyone in the Church opposed letting the laity know there were pedophiles running rampant in nearly every diocese.
Fr. John Hardon went to Rome in 1994 to seek the removal of Bishop Daniel Ryan, a notorious sexual pervert. Hardon was rebuffed, and Ryan remained in office for a very long while, protected by people like Cardinals George, Bernardin, and the papal nuncio.
Fr. Hardon frequently said the bishops were the "most corrupt" in the history of the Church. He said this at least once from the pulpit, at Assumption Grotto Church in Detroit.
Fr. Hardon was not stupid or naive. He was correct, and the worlwide media and courts proved it following the awful disclosures of Cardinal Law's misdeeds in 2002.
Nathan: The Vatican's decision to appoint a man bishop, once, twice, etc., is NO evidence of his good character, or orthodoxy. Especially if the appointment was made under Paul VI or JPII. Untener was summoned to Rome twice in one week to discuss porno movies that were being shown in his seminary. Several months later, he was appointed bishop of Saginaw. I met him about fifteen years ago--powder, rouge, eyeliner, and all. It was disturbing. JPII's wretched neglect of the governance of the Church is the reason I cringe when I hear him called "The Great." Before travel or encyclicals, getting control of the bishop-selection process should have been a priority. There are priests out there who, if made bishops, could transform the Church magnificently, who are truly pro-life, who would have the courage to teach Catholicism, and we got Law, O'Connor, Mahony, Untener, Bernardin, McCarrick, Wuerl, Symons, and the continuation of Hunthausen, Weakland, etc.
Jay McNally: And where is Ryan now, now that he has been "disgraced"? Giving retreats, doing Confirmations, etc.,--just like the exposed and "disgraced" Rembert Weakland, and other "disgraced" bishops. There's plenty of disgrace among the bishops. What appears to be utterly absent is any shame. It appears a stake through the heart may be the only thing that can stop a bishop who has been exposed as a philanderer, molester, rapist, etc.
It's no wonder the vast majority of bishops refuse to oppose abortion in a meaningful way: The best protection a corrupt hierarchy has is to be so irrelevant to society that nobody cares about their boyfriends, etc., and the number-one priority of bishops who want to be irrelevant is not to ruffle the feathers of the pro-abortion Catholic politicians. Thus, Pelosi, Kerry, Dodd, etc., receiving Communion last Sunday at the Papal Mass.
Sid:
Of course, for us outsiders, it's all hearsay. When that's all the evidence available, that's all that's available.
Courts must construe according to the law. The world may construe according to its wits. To paraphrase Robert Bolt.
It is only in a court that hearsay is excluded, and the accused is presumed innocent. In other situations, those rules are sometimes irrational and irresponsible. A pope, for instance, should apply the opposite of both rules when selecting bishops.
Seeing that bishops suffer NO real penalties for any kind of sexual behavior, it seems to me that a little bit of hearsay on a few blogs is a small price for McCarrick to pay, as he receives the applause of thousands and yet another honorary doctorate from Notre Dame next week.
There's no doubt that John Paul and Paul VI made some appointments that have turned out to be dubious, but in the case of JP II, that's going to happen when you're in office for 26 years. But for every Mahony, there's also a Chaput. So the late pope certainly signed off on some very good men to be shepherds. By the way, what was wrong with Cardinal O'Connor? That guy was vocal in his opposition to abortion and gay rights. What am I missing about him?
It'll be interesting to see if Benedict, with his much more hands-on approach in the appointment process, has the longevity to shape the American hierarchy as he wants it. Father, you're obviously no fan of his most significant American appointment to date, and certainly people weren't fans of the current prefect of the CDF. All eyes are now on New York, and I'd be willing to bet that the appointee will disappoint more than a few, as well. Like I said, a few years after his death, it'll be interesting to see how Benedict's appointments will be evaluated.
What's wrong with Cardinal O'Connor? He was quite outspoken in defense of the unborn and started the Sisters for Life a wonderful pro-life community in New York City. He was mentioned along with his predecessor Cardinal Cooke by Pope Benedict in his homily at St. Patrick's for their defense of life.
By posting this topic and repeating the calumny it contains you are in violation of Cans. 220 and 1390.2. You may be subject to ecclesiastical sanction.
Good posts, Fr. Joe and Jay McNally!
Commenting by HaloScan
