
Denver Newsroom, Nov 10, 2020 / 03:00 pm (CNA).- An undercover KGB agent tried to befriend ex-cardinal Theodore McCarrick in the early 1980s, prompting the FBI to ask the rising churchman to exploit this connection to counter Soviet intelligence, according to claims in the Vatican’s report on McCarrick released Tuesday.
The Nov. 10 McCarrick Report offers detail on McCarrick’s church career and the sexual abuse his successful personality helped to conceal.
“In the early 1980s, a KGB agent who enjoyed diplomatic cover as the Deputy Chief of Mission to the United Nations for the Soviet Union approached McCarrick, apparently to attempt to befriend him,” said the report, released by the Vatican Nov. 10. “McCarrick, who was initially unaware that the diplomat was also a KGB agent, was contacted by agents of the FBI, who asked him to serve as a counterintelligence asset with respect to the activities of the KGB.”
“Though McCarrick believed it was best to decline such involvement (particularly because he was immersed in the organization of the new Diocese of Metuchen), the FBI persisted, contacting McCarrick again and encouraging him to allow a relationship with the KGB agent to develop,” the report continued.
McCarrick had been an auxiliary bishop of New York City from, and became the first bishop of the newly created Diocese of Metuchen, New Jersey in 1981. He would become Archbishop of Newark in 1986, then Archbishop of Washington in 2001.
In January 1985, McCarrick reported the FBI’s request “in detail” to Apostolic Nuncio Pio Laghi, seeking the nuncio’s advice.
“Laghi 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’,” said the report.
The compilers of the McCarrick Report say the rest of the story is not known to them.
“It is not clear, however, whether McCarrick ultimately accepted the FBI’s proposal, and no record reflects further contact with the KGB agent,” said the report.
Former FBI director Louis Freeh said in an interview cited in the report that he was not personally familiar with the incident. However, he said that McCarrick would have been “a very high value target for any of the (intelligence) services, but particularly the Russians at that time.”
The McCarrick Report cites Freeh’s 2005 book, “My FBI: Bringing Down the Mafia, Investigating Bill Clinton, and Waging War on Terror,” in which he described Cardinal John O’Connor’s “great efforts, prayers and real help to dozens of FBI agents and their families—especially to me.”
“Later, Cardinals McCarrick and Law continued this special ministry to the FBI family, who revered both of them,” Freeh’s book said, referring to former Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Bernard Law.
In the Cold War era, prominent Catholic leaders in the U.S. tended to strongly back the FBI for its work against communism. Cardinal Francis Spellman, who ordained McCarrick to the priesthood in 1958, was a well-known supporter of the FBI, as was Archbishop Fulton Sheen, whom McCarrick came to know after Sheen’s 1969 retirement from the Diocese of Syracuse.
Years after McCarrick’s encounter with the KGB agent and the FBI request for assistance, McCarrick would refer to the FBI anonymous letters which alleged he was engaging in sexual misconduct. He denied these accusations, though his victims who later came forward have indicated he was sexually abusing boys and young men as early as 1970, as a priest of the New York archdiocese.
The McCarrick Report indicates that McCarrick would emphatically deny the allegations, while seeking law enforcement help to respond to them.
In 1992 and 1993 an unknown author or authors circulated anonymous letters to leading Catholic bishops accusing McCarrick of sexual abuse. The letters did not name specific victims or present any knowledge of a specific incident, though they suggested his “nephews”–young men McCarrick frequently singled out for special treatment–were potential victims, the McCarrick Report states.
An anonymous letter sent to Cardinal O’Connor, dated Nov. 1, 1992, postmarked from Newark and addressed to National Conference of Catholic Bishops members, claimed imminent scandal from McCarrick’s misconduct, which it alleged was “common knowledge in clerical and religious circles for years.” The letter claimed that civil charges of “pedophilia or incest” were imminent regarding McCarrick’s “overnight guests.”
After O’Connor sent the letter to McCarrick, McCarrick indicated he was investigating.
“You might want to know that I have shared (the letter) with some of our friends in the FBI to see if we can find out who is writing it,” McCarrick said to O’Connor in a Nov. 21, 1992 response. “I am afraid he is a sick person and someone who has a lot of hate in his heart.”
A Newark-postmarked anonymous letter, dated Feb. 24, 1993 and sent to O’Connor, accused McCarrick of being a “cunning pedophile,” without naming specifics, and also claiming that this had been known for decades by “authorities here and in Rome.”
In a March 15, 1993 letter to O’Connor, McCarrick again cited his consultations with law enforcement.
“When the first letter arrived, after discussion with my vicars general and auxiliary bishops, we shared it with our friends in the FBI and local police,” McCarrick said. “They predicted that the writer would strike again and that he or she was someone whom I may have offended or crossed in some way but someone probably known to us. The second letter clearly supports that supposition.”
The same day, McCarrick wrote to Apostolic Nuncio Archbishop Agostino Cacciavillan, saying anonymous letters were “attacking my reputation.”
“These letters, which presumably are written by the same person, are unsigned and obviously very annoying,” he said. “On each occasion, I have shared them with my auxiliary bishops and vicars general and with our friends in the FBI and the local police.”
The McCarrick Report said that the anonymous letters “appear to have been viewed as libelous attacks made for improper political or personal motives” and did not result in any investigation.
When Pope John Paul II was considering whether to name McCarrick as Archbishop of Washington, Cacciavillan considered McCarrick’s report about the accusations to be a point in McCarrick’s favor. He specifically cited the Nov. 21, 1992 letter to O’Connor.
By 1999, Cardinal O’Connor had come to believe McCarrick might be guilty of some kind of misconduct. He asked Pope John Paul II not to name McCarrick as O’Connor’s successor in New York, citing allegations that McCarrick shared beds with seminarians, among other rumors and allegations.
The report depicts McCarrick as an ambitious workaholic and a cunning personality, at ease in circles of influence and establishing contacts with political and religious leaders. He spoke several languages and would serve on delegations for the Vatican, the U.S. State Department, and NGOs. He would at times accompany Pope John Paul II during his travels.
The new Vatican report indicates McCarrick’s networking included many law enforcement officials.
“During his time as ordinary of the Archdiocese of Newark, McCarrick made numerous contacts in state and federal law enforcement,” said the Vatican report. Thomas E. Durkin, described as McCarrick’s “well-connected New Jersey attorney,” helped McCarrick meet the leaders of the New Jersey State Troopers and the head of the FBI in New Jersey.
A priest who formerly served as a New Jersey police officer said McCarrick’s relationship “was not atypical since relations between the Archdiocese and Newark police have historically been close and cooperative.” McCarrick himself was “comfortable among law enforcement,” according to the McCarrick report, which said his uncle was a captain in his police department and later headed a police academy.
As for McCarrick’s encounter with a KGB agent undercover at the United Nations, the story is just one of many provocative incidents involving the influential churchman.
Monsignor Dominic Bottino, a priest of the Diocese of Camden, described an incident at a catering hall in Newark in January 1990 in which McCarrick appeared to ask his help in obtaining privileged information about bishops’ appointments in the U.S.
Camden’s then-new Bishop James T. McHugh, then-Auxiliary Bishop John Mortimer Smith of Newark, McCarrick, and a young priest whose name Bottino could not recall attended a small dinner in celebration of McCarrick’s consecration of Smith and McHugh as bishops. Bottino was surprised to learn that he had been selected to become an attache at the Holy See’s Permanent Observer Mission to the United Nations.
McCarrick, who appeared to have become inebriated from drinking, told Bottino that the Holy See’s Permanent Observer mission’s diplomatic pouch regularly contained episcopal appointments for U.S. dioceses.
“Placing his hand on Bottino’s arm, McCarrick asked whether he could ‘count on’ Bottino once he became the attaché to provide him with information from the pouch,” the Vatican report said. “After Bottino stated that it would seem that the material in the pouch needed to remain confidential, McCarrick patted his arm and replied, ‘You’re good. But I think I can count on you’.”
Not long after this exchange, Bottino said, he witnessed McCarrick grope the crotch area of the young priest sitting next to him at the dinner table. The young priest appeared “paralyzed” and “terrified.” McHugh then abruptly stood up “in a sort of panic” and said he and Bottino had to leave, perhaps only 20 minutes after their arrival
There is no evidence that Smith or McHugh reported the incident to any Holy See official, including the apostolic nuncio.

[…]
Did Cdn Pell receive any support, whatsoever, from the Vatican?
No.
Follow the money, always.
Have their been any public calls for prayer from Pope Francis for Cardinal Pell?
Exactly! Pell has been left on his own with Francis and the Vatican saying they have confidence in the Australian judicial system. Why is Francis afraid to stand by Pell! Is this just like bishops who abandon priests? Guilty or not.
I am not a “conspiratist” however, we must follow the money. Pell obviously has enemies in the secular world of Australia; fuethermore, sadly, he has been abandoned by those prelates who are in bed with that secular world.
Weird scenes in the goldmine
From the article — “…the cardinal has displayed a remarkable equanimity and good cheer that can only come from a clear conscience.”
That seems to be a conclusion rooted in opinion rather than in fact. Such ‘equanimity and cheer’ could also be from an amoral or immoral character trait that denies the wrongness of the act rather than the act itself.
Or such equanimity could come from the fact that he knows he is guiltless and must suffer this for the sake of Christ.
The ones who deny the wrongness of the act, the ones who pervert the truth are the ones in hegemony now in society – the LGBT and its Marxist cohorts
Come ON Jake !!!!!
Jake: You would have a marginally legitimate point if not for the actual evidence (facts) of the case which demonstrates to all rational minded people that the immoral act/s could not have been committed by Cardinal Pell as alleged.
And if you truly favor facts, you must favor a complete exoneration of Cardinal Pell based on the objective facts alone. If you wish to persecute Cardinal Pell without the objective facts, not only is that merely opinion on your part, it is purposely uninformed opinion in order to pursue a great injustice.
Fully agree with you Jake. In outside life his arrogance was clear for all to see and his contempt for the little man was barely concealed. Any religious person who has witnessed a boy being sodomized by another and refuses to do anything about it, is as guilty as the perpetrator. Why was his diocese paying fees for private boarding school tuition for a number of students? This man was never got for purpose.
And monkeys might fly out of my butt
Yes. Thank you.
Unlike Hollywood justice in too many instances comes after the accused has past on. I have zero faith in the Victoria legal system.
This man is innocent and MUST be freed! So many guilty are free yet this good man is behind bars? This is insanity! Where’s the proof of his wrong doing? There is none! Christ was condemned by lies and Cardinal Pell suffers the same kind of condemnation with no proof of wrong doing!
Well said, Gail Barringon, I agree 110%.
The prejudice and undisguised glee at the Cardinal’s conviction shown by the media after their relentless and biased coverage, together with the vitriol and hatred shown by victims groups and members of the public have forever ruined this good priest’s reputation, after a long and faithful life of service in the church . Even if his appeal is successful, many will remain convinced of his guilt. Even most of his brother priests have failed him, there have been no calls for prayer support from any pulpit that I’ve heard of -too afraid of public criticism. I hope those bearing false witness against the Lord’s anointed receive what is their due.
Cardinal Pell is a Prelate of great integrity and great humility who views his incarceration whilst awaiting trial as a prolonged Retreat. God bless you your Eminence so innocent of such vicious attack. St John Fisher and St Thomas More please accompany this servant of God in his trials.
The wierdness of the trial goes beyond what George Weigel has said. Close study of paragraph 26 of the judge’s sentencing remarks, freely available on the web, will show that Charges 3 and 4 of the five charges on which Cardinal Pell has been ‘convicted’ require him to have three hands. Charge 3 involves Pell’s supposedly doing something to the so-called victim with his hands, plural. The next sentence opens ‘While you were doing this’ (i.e. with the hands, plural’), you (Pell) began to do something to yourself with ‘your other hand’! Kafka meets Monty Python? If that is the best the Victorian justice (or should that be ‘justice’?) system can do, the case should be laughed out of court.
The legal saga will continue as the apex court, the High Court of Australia – the same lot who forced opened the unconstitutional redefinition of marriage in Australia in an act of constitutional treason and, sadly, supported by a numb skull parliament and negligent Governor General (whose primary duty is to protect the Constitution and keep it safe when the other arms of the tripartite system the Parliament and Judiciary run amok) has – by virtue of a protagonist Victorian State Director Of Public Prosecutions, a supportive or lazy Attorney General(?) who has bee running appeals against their own State judiciary and the HCA has recently been over turning similar appeals decisions from the apex State Appeals Courts.
That all said, the HCA has called out the same Victorian Police and DPP on their legal practices – https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-06/lawyer-x-informer-3838-royal-commissioner-resigns/10784912
Law in Victoria make the US Wild West model practitioners of Magna Carta principles…
I ask myself who is George Weigel with respect to the following thoughts i have recently written:
The Church, the people of God, the followers of Jesus,
need to follow Jesus before, above and beyond
any social and political construct.
Therefore we must continually ask ourselves these questions:
Who is Jesus?
What is his character?
What are his priorities, principals and values?
How would he do life?
Then we must endeavour to apply the answers to these questions
in all aspects of our daily lives.
Our primary task as The Church, the people of God, the followers of Jesus,
is not to tell those who do not believe,
how they should live
and under what laws they should live.
Rather it is for us to live first and foremost in the
character and example of Jesus.
If we live primarily in a manner contrary
then despite the labels and names we use for our selfs,
our organisations and our Churches
We can not be authentically following Jesus
Instead we are misrepresenting
who he is…
what his character is…
and what his priorities, principals and values are.
Chris Hallam.
Um, okay. But is there something specific in Mr. Weigel’s essay that you take issue with?
All of it.