The Dispatch: More from CWR...

Analysis: The non-trial of Theodore McCarrick

By Ed Condon

Then-Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, retired archbishop of Washington, and Cardinal Donald W. Wuerl of Washington concelebrate Mass in 2010 in St. Peter's Basilica at the Vatican. (CNS photo/Nancy Wiechec)

Vatican City, Jan 7, 2019 / 12:30 pm (CNA).- While recent media reports suggest that a trial of Archbishop Theodore McCarrick is underway, Vatican sources have told CNA that his case is not being handled by a full judicial process.

Sources at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith have confirmed that allegations against McCarrick are being considered through an abbreviated approach called an “administrative penal process.”

That decision gives insight into the strength of evidence against McCarrick, and suggests that resolving sexual abuse allegations against the archbishop is a top priority for Pope Francis and other senior Vatican officials.

Canon law outlines specific processes for handling allegations of sexual abuse by clerics. All of these are reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome. When the charges involve a bishop, the CDF requires specially delegated authority from the pope to handle the case.

A full canonical trial is a lengthy affair. Depositions of witnesses and alleged victims are taken by the court at which a prosecutor, called the “promoter of justice” in canon law, and lawyers for the defense are present. Written argumentation is exchanged through a panel of judges, with precise timelines, manners of proceeding, and legal minutiae that must be observed at each step of the way, in order to ensure that the rights of the accused are protected.

In previous sexual abuse cases against bishops, full and formal trials have taken years, and include the possibility of appeals by both the prosecution and defense. But this is not happening with McCarrick.

Under certain circumstances canon law allows for a legal investigation and determination to be conducted by an administrative penal process. This is a much-abbreviated mechanism that leaves out many of the procedural stages of a full judicial process or trial, including the back-and-forth argumentation between prosecution and defense.

An administrative process is only used when the evidence collected during the preliminary investigation is so clear as to make a full trial unnecessary.

In McCarrick’s case, the use of an administrative process strongly suggests that the Vatican has clear evidence the archbishop has committed a delict, an ecclesiastical crime, especially because his position as an archbishop and former cardinal guarantee considerable scrutiny of the result.

The use of the abbreviated process for McCarrick also indicates a significant change in the CDF’s assessment of the evidence and allegations he faces.

The first public accusation against McCarrick, announced by the Archdiocese of New York in June, concerned abuse against an altar boy who was, at the time of the alleged abuse, 16 years old.

While that allegation was enough to trigger a number of subsequent disclosures about McCarrick’s alleged behavior over a period of years, and prompted his departure from the college of cardinals, sources close to the CDF told CNA that a trial over that allegation was, by itself, unlikely to result in McCarrick’s laicization.

In addition to the relative paucity of evidence, sources also noted that at the time of the alleged abuse in the early 1970s, canon law did not consider someone over 16 years old to be a minor, which means that a trial might have concerned delicts more difficult to prosecute than child abuse.

But in the course of the CDF’s investigation, evidence has been received from a number of other alleged victims of McCarrick.

Key among McCarrick’s accusers is James Grein, who gave evidence before specially deputized archdiocesan officials in New York on Dec. 27.

As part of the CDF’s investigation, Grein testified that McCarrick, a family friend, sexually abused him over a period of years, beginning when he was 11 years old. He also alleged that McCarrick carried out some of the abuse during the sacrament of confession – itself a separate canonical crime that can lead to the penalty of laicization.

The CDF has also reportedly received evidence from an additional alleged victim of McCarrick – 13 at the time of the alleged abuse began – and from as many as 8 seminarian-victims in the New Jersey dioceses of Newark and Metuchen, in which McCarrick served as bishop.

Because of the collection of that evidence, McCarrick now faces multiple canonical charges of sexual misconduct and abuse concerning both minors and adults, including solicitation in the confessional. Use of the abbreviated administrative process, which is only employed in cases of compelling evidence, indicates that McCarrick is likely to be convicted on at least some of the charges.

According to CDF sources, the investigative phase of the process has now been formally concluded and McCarrick has been given the chance both to speak in his own defense. His canon lawyer may also submit arguments on his behalf.

The CDF is expected to formally assess the evidence and defense within the next week, and to reach a final determination.

While many Catholics, including some bishops, have expressed frustration at a lack of resolution to the McCarrick case, his process is proceeding at break-neck pace, at least by canonical standards.

Nevertheless, the CDF has been under pressure from the pope, together with several senior American cardinals, to resolve the matter before the heads of the world’s bishops’ conferences gather in Rome next month for a crisis summit on the recent sexual abuse scandals.

Some announcement of a decision is highly likely ahead of that meeting.

McCarrick is likely to be laicized if he is found guilty.

The Church has refrained from dismissing clerics who are either too old, infirm, and without other means of support, recognizing a moral obligation by the Church to see to their basic subsistence.

But while he McCarrick is old and in failing health, he is also known to be financially independent. As one source in Rome told CNA “The CDF don’t usually laicize someone if it means they’ll be living on the street, but McCarrick has always had money to throw around.”

It also seems likely that as a technical matter, it will be Pope Francis, not the CDF, that declares a verdict and imposes a penalty on the archbishop.

The CDF’s legal procedures for an administrative process include the option to “present the most grave cases to the decision of the Roman Pontiff,” especially when they include dismissal from the clerical state. The pope has stated that he prefers to make the final decision on cases involving bishops, and the CDF is likely to acquiesce to the preference.

Among the reasons Pope Francis might decide McCarrick’s case personally is expediency. If the CDF imposes a penalty on McCarrick, the archbishop will be free to appeal the matter to the pope, and that could delay announcement of a resolution to sometime after the February summit.

On the other hand, if CDF chooses to make a recommendation to Francis that he personally declare the guilty verdict and the penalty of laicization, and if the pope does so, it would be formally impossible for the decision to be appealed.

Since the announcement of the first formal accusation against him in June, McCarrick has become for many the public face of the sexual abuse crisis. His fall from grace has damaged the credibility of many senior members of the Church’s hierarchy, both in the United States and in Rome, and has touched the legacies of three successive popes.

Removing McCarrick from the newscycle – and possibly the clerical state – has been a major priority for both the pope and the American hierarchy.

If his case is resolved before the February summit, it could be seen a much-needed demonstration by Pope Francis that he is serious about punishing offending bishops.

But even if resolved, the McCarrick case will pose serious questions for the bishops to consider next month in Rome.

The long list of charges he faces includes many seminarians and other adults. While he may be convicted and laicized on the strength of the evidence he abused minors, his other victims will also look for justice.

Prominent voices like Cardinal Sean O’Malley and Marie Collins, the abuse survivor and former member of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, have called for a change in the CDF’s legal definition of “vulnerable adults,” who are classed alongside minors by the CDF in sexual abuse cases.

Currently, a vulnerable adult is someone who “habitually lacks the use of reason.” O’Malley and Collins have both called for the definition to be broadened to include other victims, especially when sexual abuse it accompanied by an abuse of authority or power. Such a redefinition would include McCarrick’s alleged seminarian-victims.

If the Rome meeting next month sets out to narrowly treat the the issue of minors, and seems to exclude other victims of coercive sexual abuse, the figure of Theodore McCarrick might still cast a shadow over anything it tries to achieve.

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.

About Catholic News Agency 5939 Articles
Catholic News Agency (


  1. McCarrick is said to be financially solvent. The following statement reinforces the mandate for a swift civil trial. Never mind the Canon law…
    “The Church has refrained from dismissing clerics who are either too old, infirm, and without other means of support, recognizing a moral obligation by the Church to see to their basic subsistence.”

    • As a new Catholic, I am shattered by the McCarrick scandal and even more, by the silence and cover-ups of so many Bishops and Cardinals, and the almost criminal slowness at the Vatican firstly, to own the problem and secondly, to deal with it decisively. It seems as though the Bishops and clergy who are faithful to Christ in their own lives and in their ministry are being systematically silenced or demoted. While I pray it is not as serious as it seems, if I had been aware of these revelations during my RCIA, I seriously wonder if I would have had the courage to continue my journey to the Church of Rome. With daily Mass and Rosary, I intend to fight the “Smoke of Satan”.

  2. Yes. “In McCarrick’s case, the use of an administrative process strongly suggests that the Vatican has clear evidence the archbishop has committed a delict, an ecclesiastical crime”. And the abbreviated process may also be intended to avoid long public exposure to the scandal and the disclosure of testimony of connected players including bishops cardinals and according to Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano the Pontiff. If cleansing the Church is our utmost priority rather than brief trial and sanction extensive examination and an extended length of trial is highly warranted. And indeed necessary for full justice.

  3. “McCarrick is likely to be laicized if he is found guilty.” Don’t bet on that.

    “McCarrick has always had money to throw around.” How is this possible? He must have skimmed it from the funds he solicited for the Church.

  4. McCarrick and “his friends” (hello “Team Bergoglio”) are indeed, as Carl Olson wrote: idolaters.

    McCarrick “is financially independent.” Think of all of the evil ways that could happen in “McCarrick-Church-of-the-Poor.”

    Power, money and sexual gratification: the gods of anti-Christ reigning in the “Church-of-Sankt-Galen.” The Same ancient enemy of The Most High, and Our Lord His Son.

  5. Doesn’t seem like an “administrative penal process” could have an origin other than in a certain conception of the bishop of Rome as patriarch/pope. A canonical trial handled locally may be more preferable for ecclesiological reasons.

  6. i can think of few things easier than making false accusations against people who are dead, especially if financial rewards are the result.

    if the accusations were made while the alleged perpetrator was alive, that is a different case.

    allegations and accusations are only allegations and accusations until the preponderance of the evidence provided by the accusers is authenticated.

    i agree with pope francis that much of the hullabaloo surrounding the secular promoted frenzy against the Church is inspired by satan. people do not have to know they are serving satan to be actually serving him.

    do not forget our Lord’s words in Matthew 5:11-12 and in John 15:20-21.

  7. Convict him criminally as a pedophile and child predator! Forget all of this religious nonsense that has outdated laws, convictions and punishment (or lack thereof).

5 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. TVESDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
  2. Cardinals McCarrick, Wuerl, and Farrell: A Web of Sex Abuse, Bribes, Financial Misconduct and Cover-ups | The Open Tabernacle: Here Comes Everybody
  3. In Unprecedented Numbers, U.S. Bishops Named in Lawsuits and Why It Matters | The Open Tabernacle: Here Comes Everybody
  4. Pope Francis Cares More about His Money than Our Children | The Open Tabernacle: Here Comes Everybody
  5. Pope John Paul II was Bad. Pope Francis is Far Worse. | The Open Tabernacle: Here Comes Everybody

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.