
Vatican City, Jan 8, 2020 / 02:33 pm (CNA).- The news that Theodore McCarrick recently moved from the Kansas friary where he had been living has fueled speculation that a report from the Vatican’s internal investigation on McCarrick will soon be released.
But while the report may be completed in Rome, its release may not be imminent, and some U.S. bishops may be quietly hoping for further delays.
The report is the fruit of an internal Vatican investigation into the career of McCarrick, who was a cardinal and the archbishop of two major American sees before he was found canonically guilty of serial sexual abuse and laicized.
In October 2018, just months after sexual abuse allegations against McCarrick first emerged, the Vatican said that Pope Francis had commissioned a study of the Vatican archival files on McCarrick, “in order to ascertain all the relevant facts, to place them in their historical context and to evaluate them objectively.”
Since the study was announced, American Catholics have called for the release of its findings. In recent months, the report’s release has become highly anticipated.
In November, Cardinal Sean O’Malley told the U.S. bishops’ conference that the Vatican intended to publish the report “soon, if not before Christmas, soon in the new year.”
O’Malley said that he had seen a “hefty document,” which was being translated into Italian for the benefit of Pope Francis, before its imminent release.
“The long wait has resulted in great frustration on the part of bishops and our people, and indeed a harsh and even cynical interpretation of the seeming silence,” O’Malley acknowledged.
In December, Bishop Earl Boyea said he had told been told by the pope that the report would be issued “probably after the beginning of the new year.”
And McCarrick’s January move to an undisclosed priests’ residence was apparently motivated, at least in part, by a desire to avoid media attention when the report is released. That move has led to speculation that the report could be released at any time.
But some U.S. bishops may not be eager for the report to be released.
Some, of course, might be concerned about their own connections to McCarrick. But the saga of Fulton Sheen’s beatification suggests that some bishops might have other reasons to consider asking for the McCarrick report to be postponed.
Last month, the Diocese of Peoria, Illinois announced that the beatification of Archbishop Fulton Sheen, which had been set for Dec. 22, had been indefinitely delayed.
CNA soon reported that the delay was caused by an intervention from Rochester’s Bishop Salvatore Matano, who asked the apostolic nuncio in the U.S. to postpone the ceremony. Sources close to the Rochester diocese told CNA that among Matano’s concerns was the possibility of lawsuits against Sheen, who was Rochester’s bishop from 1966 to 1969.
New York is in the midst of a “window” that allows lawsuits related to sexual abuse that fall beyond the normal statute of limitations. That window closes in August.
New Jersey is also in a statute of limitations window, which began in December and ends in 2021. McCarrick served as a bishop in both New York and New Jersey, during the period in which he committed acts of sexual abuse and coercion.
In light of the Sheen beatification delay, it is reasonable to wonder whether some bishops in New York and New Jersey might borrow a page from Matano’s playbook, and ask that the McCarrick report be delayed, at least until August, when the New York window closes.
Obviously, no bishop would want to make such a request publicly. But the bishops of New York and New Jersey cannot be eager to face the litigation that could follow the McCarrick report. Some of them might decide to ask the apostolic nuncio, or the Secretariat of State, to consider that.
According to Boyea, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin is already apprehensive about public fallout from the McCarrick report. The cardinal might be disposed to look favorably on their request, or to tie up the report in bureaucracy until after the New York window has closed.
Of course, any such request presumes that the report will offer new and significant details about the former cardinal’s career, protectors, and abusive behavior. It might not.
Veteran Vatican journalists are already predicting that long-time Vatican power broker Cardinal Angelo Sodano will not figure into the report, despite his significant influence during the John Paul II papacy. Some have also suggested that Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz, John Paul II’s long-time secretary, will also be notably absent from the report.
While Pope Francis promised in 2018 to “follow the path of truth wherever it may lead” on McCarrick, there is little indication how much of that truth will be made available for public consumption. Politics, horse-trading, and the reflexive Vatican tendency not to stir up trouble will doubtlessly be factors in negotiations over the report.
American Catholics are eager for a report telling them who promoted McCarrick, and who protected him.
Whenever it is actually released, the Vatican’s report may offer few satisfying insights into those questions.
[…]
If true, this is very bad news.
The writing was not only on the wall it was emblazoned across the media by his being rendered impotent by the Pontiff. Beginning with the Pontiff’s dismissal of Cdl Mueller’s trusted, orthodox Staff, muzzling him. The idea that AL must be read in continuity with tradition is counter to the Pontiff’s purpose in AL and ongoing implementation by a nod and wink to the German and other Bishops Conferences. He’s a good man. I regret he didn’t stand up directly to the Pontiff and get fired with not only honor. But with the courage to set an example for the Church.
Apparently, he doesn’t…
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/07/02/cardinal-mller-theres-no-problem-between-me-pope-francis/
Well, well..,all of you die-hard Francis defenders have what to say???
The Holy Spirit and the Deposit of Faith…we will soon see if the Catholic Church is the true Church.
The Deposit of the Faith has not been abrogated and never will be. Our Catholic Faith is assured by Christ’s words. The Pontiff has not officially touched or changed one word. Devious covert implementation of any policy contrary to that Deposit is manifest error, non binding, absolutely necessary to reject. Which it will be by the Faithful. With Christ we may suffer awhile. With him steadfast in the Catholic Faith we will rise to eternal life.
….that the pope is exercising his rightful prerogative??
Bruno Forte would be bad as the head of the CDF; I don’t know anything about Archbishop Luis Francisco Ladaria Ferrer, SJ. O’Malley didn’t impress me as the Archbishop of Boston and I have no reason to think that he will act as the voice that Pope Francis needs.
Pope Francis and any further perversions of pastoral teaching (for example, anything that may result from the rumored commission on Humanae Vitae) are a problem for Latin Catholics only if they hold to a strong ultramontanist view of the papacy.
Francis-Kirk is fake Catholicism.
Francis hires people like James Martin to teach immorality to our children, while F confection the facade of “orthodoxy.”
Double-talking and dog-whistling all day, every day.
An unworthy shepherd.
I wouldn’t leave my children alone in a room with him or any man who he appoints – they are not trustworthy.
Cardinal Mueller is a great man, who stood by the faith when the Pope undermined him at every turn. He tried to correct Amoris Laetitia, but the Pope rejected his counsel. He tried to save AL from itself, but the Pope rejected him. His job was not to stand up and oppose the Pope publicly, as some contend. His job was to try and steer a dangerous Pope in the right direction, without undermining the Papacy itself. Now Mueller will be free to speak out more clearly.
Two very troubling items – Many have said that the Pope was out to undermine the legacy and magisterium of JP II. Now we hear that he is removing JP II’s name from the John Paul II Institute for the Family. If true, this is a heinous act of a very tiny man. It is perhaps conclusive evidence of an irrational dislike for JP II and his thought. It shows a pettiness and arrogance that many have seen in this man.
Second, Archbishop Paglia recently told the parents of a severely disabled and dying baby to essentially forget about it and let their baby die. They had raised 1.4 million dollars to take their baby to America to try one last treatment as a last ditch attempt to save his life. Not only would the vaunted British healthcare system not pay for it, they refused to let the parents take their baby to America to even try to treat the baby. This is heartlessness in spades. Paglia cynically quoted JP II out of context, and claimed that the parents should let their baby die rather than try one last treatment. This is evidence of extreme sickness in the Vatican. The whole Vatican seems to be rejecting Catholicism.
The Vatican is embarrassed by and therefore rejects many things Catholic.
The Vatican under this pontiff is not a defender of the Faith.
Muller should not be surprised at his removal. No thinking Catholic should be surprised, al all.
All things pertaining to John Paul II are inimical to His Holiness and moreover Poland is being reminded that their resistance to his new pastoral teaching has caused him great offence
“Now Mueller will be free to speak out more clearly.”
Yep. And here’s what he has to say… (Warning: Content is HIGHLY disappointing to ideologues.)
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/07/02/cardinal-mller-theres-no-problem-between-me-pope-francis/