Vatican City, Nov 10, 2020 / 10:30 am (CNA).- The Vatican’s report on Theodore McCarrick released Tuesday includes a letter written by an American cardinal in 1999, who objected to McCarrick’s potential appointment to higher office, on the basis of existing allegations of misconduct, including incidents involving sharing a bed with seminarians at a New Jersey beach house.
On Oct. 28, 1999, Cardinal John O’Connor of New York wrote a letter to the U.S. apostolic nuncio, Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo, after the cardinal learned that McCarrick was under consideration to be appointed his successor as archbishop of New York. That letter was shared with Pope John Paul II shortly thereafter, the Vatican’s McCarrick Report states.
“With deep regret, I would have to express my own grave fears and those of authoritative witnesses cited above, that should Archbishop McCarrick be given higher responsibility in the United States, particularly if elevated to a Cardinatial See, seem[] sound reasons for believing that rumors and allegations about the past might surface with such an appointment, with the possibility of accompanying grave scandal and widespread adverse publicity,” O’Connor wrote.
He added that “while charity must prevail and the benefit of the doubt always given to the ‘accused,’ the good of souls and the reputation of the Church must be seriously considered and the potential for scandal given equally serious consideration.”
“I can not, therefore, in conscience, recommend His Excellency, Archbishop McCarrick for promotion to higher office, should this be the reason for your inquiry concerning him at this time. On the contrary, I regret that I would have to recommend very strongly against such promotion, particularly if to a Cardinatial See, including New York.”
O’Connor wrote in 1999 that authoritative sources had told him that stories about McCarrick frequently arranging for seminarians to visit a New Jersey beach house circulated in the dioceses of Newark and Metuchen, specifically that “the arrangement was for seven seminarians, six of whom shared the guestrooms and one of whom shared the bed with the Archbishop.”
He said that a key authority had informed him that he believed “that some problem did occur involving at least one person, perhaps a priest, and that Bishop Hughes handled that personally and secretly.”
O’Connor said that he had personally asked a priest psychologist of New York archdiocese to speak with the psychiatrist who was treating a priest involved.
“Both the priest psychologist and the psychiatrist seem convinced that the priests or priests (sic) in treatment were victimized, willingly or unwillingly, in their inappropriate relationship with the then Bishop McCarrick, while Bishop of Metuchen,” O’Connor wrote in the letter. He added that he did not find these findings “definitely persuasive,” but could not dismiss their findings “because of the gravity of the allegations.”
O’Connor also raised concerns about McCarrick’s “seemingly incessant need to travel outside of the archdiocese to different parts of the world,” saying that he questioned whether there could be “any relationship between this seeming need to travel outside the archdiocese and his apparently having put his former alleged inclinations behind him.”
Cardinal O’Connor led the Archdiocese of New York from 1984 until his death on May 3, 2000. He was a major figure of American Catholicism and an outspoken defender of the faith and Catholic moral teaching.
The report notes that O’Connor conducted “the first known inquiry related to concerns over McCarrick’s conduct.” In the early 1990s, O’Connor investigated anonymous complaints against McCarrick ahead of a potential papal visit to Newark. He concluded that allegations of possible misconduct with adults would not present an issue if the pope were to visit Newark.
In 1997, McCarrick was being considered to lead the Archdiocese of Chicago. While he was generally praised as a strong candidate, O’Connor questioned whether he would provide the “firmness necessary to ‘compensate’ for the prevailing permissiveness” following the tenure of Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, the report said. However, it added that O’Connor “admitted” that McCarrick could be effective in addressing theological abuses. McCarrick was ultimately not selected for the role.
The 1999 letter from O’Connor is included in the 449-page McCarrick Report on pages 131-140. The report indicates that “it is reasonable to infer” that Bishop James T. McHugh, the former auxiliary bishop of Newark, and Bishop Edward T. Hughes, the bishop emeritus of Metuchen, were O’Connor’s sources of information regarding these allegations.
O’Connor wrote that John Paul II had made clear to him in a meeting early in the summer of 1999 that he was considering appointing McCarrick to another diocese, potentially as O’Connor’s successor in New York.
After this, O’Connor expressed concern to the nuncio Montalvo in late July, saying that he was aware of “some elements of a moral nature that advised against” McCarrick’s consideration. Montalvo requested that O’Connor put his concerns in writing.
O’Connor’s letter is dated Oct. 28, only weeks after the cardinal’s release from hospital following surgery to remove a brain tumor. O’Connor died from this tumor the following May.
In the letter, O’Connor wrote that he was concerned by events related to him by “absolutely impeccable authorities as occurring in the Archdiocese of Newark during this past year.”
Among these is that “after Archbishop McCarrick was appointed as Ordinary, it was said that he would frequently invite male visitors for dinner and to stay overnight. Usually they shared a bed, although there were sufficient guestrooms … This did not become known outside the house, but it was a cause of concern for those who live there.”
Cardinal O’Connor also recommended to the nuncio several people that he could follow up with for further information regarding McCarrick, including Bishop McHugh and the attorney of the Archdiocese of Newark, Thomas Durkin, noting that the lawyer had “spoken with him [McCarrick] very forthrightly about rumors and allegations cited above.”
Upon receiving the letter, Montalvo forwarded it to the Congregation for Bishops and to the Secretariat of State. Archbishop Giovanni Battista Re, at that time the Substitute of the Secretariat of State, informed Pope John Paul II of Cardinal O’Connor’s letter, according to the report.
Montalvo left it to Re to “inform the Holy Father as to the matter in the manner you deem appropriate,” according to a handwritten note sent to Re.
O’Connor’s letter was sent the day after a letter sent by Nuncio Montalvo to the Congregation for Bishops describing Washington Cardinal James Aloysius Hickey’s endorsement of McCarrick as his first choice for the New York see, and acknowledging concern from Cardinal Bernard Francis Law that “vague allusions are enough to damage the position of a person.”
At the request of John Paul II, in response to the allegations recorded in O’Connor’s letter, separate but “substantively identical letters” were sent to Bishops Vincent Breen and Edward Hughes of Metuchen, Bishop James McHugh of Rockville Centre, and Bishop John Smith of Trenton on May 12, 2000, asking for the truth about McCarrick.
“Three of the four American bishops provided inaccurate and incomplete information to the Holy See regarding McCarrick’s sexual conduct with young adults,” the report concluded.
The bishops presenting false information were Hughes, Smith, and McHugh.
The letter of Bishop Hughes, who succeeded McCarrick in Metuchen, told the Holy See that: “I have no factual information that would clearly indicate any moral weakness on the part of Archbishop McCarrick.”
Hughes’ letter dismissed the accounts of some priests who had reported to him being molested or abused by McCarrick, even when, in one case, a psychologist affirmed that the priest had been McCarrick’s victim. Hughes noted moral lapses on the part of the priests accusing McCarrick, while dismissing their claims against the archbishop.
In fact, the bishop’s letter did not mention at all some incidents of sexual abuse or coercion that had been reported to him by Metuchen priests, according to the report.
While in O’Connor’s letter written months before, O’Connor wrote that Hughes, then bishop of Metuchen, had handled the problem by the New Jersey beach house “personally and secretly.”
O’Connor added: “I, myself, recall talking with Bishop Hughes by telephone very privately, regarding this same case, which did in fact involve at least one priest, and perhaps two. As I recall, both where (sic) in psychiatric treatment.”
Smith, who had been an auxiliary bishop in Newark, told the nuncio that “I have never heard anyone make a substantiated accusation of immoral behavior against Archbishop McCarrick nor have I any evidence of ‘serious moral weakness shown by Archbishop McCarrick.’”
But according to the report, Smith himself had in 1990 witnessed McCarrick groping the groin of a young cleric during a dinner with several officials from the archdiocese of Newark. Smith’s letter made no mention of that incident.
McHugh, then auxiliary bishop of Newark, was present at the same 1990 dinner and also saw the groping, but he wrote in his letter that he “never witnessed any improper behavior on the part of Archbishop McCarrick.”
The misinformation presented by those bishops was part of what may have informed Pope John Paul II’s decision to appoint McCarrick archbishop of Washington in November 2000, the report said.
[…]
“The Vatican said Wednesday it respects the decision by the Court of Appeals in Victoria”
Well, that makes one of us who respects it.
“The complexity of the search for the truth in this matter has tested many” (Archbishop Comensoli Melbourne) is typical of politically correct blather. There was absolutely zero complexity in this prejudiced lynching. Conviction had to rest on guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Conviction was instead pronounced by the actual morally guilty on the slightest possibility within the spectrum of possibilities. That charge immediately following Mass in a crowded Cathedral he induced two altar servers in the sacristy to perform sodomy. Witnesses denied testimony the charade of justice to the eternal shame of Australia and may I suggest the very possible Eternal condemnation of those who convicted Cardinal Pell. Rarely in history has so obvious a case of vengeful injustice against a Catholic bishop been so evident. The Vatican “respects” the decision of classic Australian Kangaroo Justice. Some Australian Lawyers have commented on this site defending irrational Catholic hate in the verdict. God help them also. The sense given by this Vatican and cowardly prelates is that there is more injustice in store for those who uncover and seek justice as did Cardinal Pell regarding misuse of finances within this Vatican. That is any injustice exposed by the faithful. Ultimately the unjust will lose at terrible price unless they repent.
While the bureaucrats at the Holy See are ducking for cover, I shall continue to believe that Cardinal Pell is innocent for as long as he claims that he is. — Australia’s first martyr in the making.
He is indeed a martyr. An atonement for the hundreds of perverted and weak bishops and priests.
They might as well have done this at Tabatha.
He is indeed a martyr. An atonement for the hundreds of perverted and weak bishops and priests.
They might as well have done this at Tabatha.
It becomes a travesty of justice knowing Cardinal Pell is sitting in prison unable to say Mass while his accuser is free.
The accuser knows full well his testimony is false due to the simple & straightforward fact that he testified that Cardinal Pell held his vestment wide open. All Catholics understand the seamless vestment is not capable of being held split open & yet the jury upon hearing this evidence convicted Cardinal Pell anyway. Shame on them & shame on the appellate court.
Not surprising considering the rampant anti-Catholic bigotry in Australia.
Cardinal Pell , sharing the first name of St.George the dragon slayer , with our Holy Father – before he took on the name of St.Francis ..
St.George and England and Australia connections , may be realms of deep wounds against The Church and all that too .
EWTN commentary mentioned doubts whether the Cardinal has that much ‘fight ‘ left in him any more , because of his age too ..
there in might be the mystery ..
Australia to Argentina, may be a deep sadness , in the Fatherly hearts, of not having foreseen the tsunami that was building up – not due to any personal
neglects , yet … thus , may be even a desire to be the victim , for both sides – for the sake of the falsely accused , which would include The Father Himself, who is the One who gets accused for the human pride , hardness of hearts and the workings of the enemy spirits that are invited in , many walking away , even daring to deny the very existence of The Father ..
the desire too , likely , to help augment focus and thus efforts , to prevent future instances , by a more aggressive implementation may be of , of all the arsenals of The Church , such as ministry of deliverance , as suggested in this article – https://spiritdailyblog.com/commentary/a-simple-inconvenient-truth
Thank God that the simple ministries that do same , such as the Heart of The Father ministries are getting more attention as well .
Would even nonconventional means such as ongoing Eucharistic cruises , esp. around these island nations , be considered , as the appeal process is being looked into – there are persons in the charismatic circles that have reported miraculous results from same .
Those Vilnius images of Mercy too , should any church in our times be without a large enough image of same, to also bring honor to The Father , since this icon seems to have the most Fatherly look AFIK.
The Cardinal , possibly have the means to have Adoration , where he is at – same might have been true for the Holy Apostles too, in their last days , in jails ..
thus joining in spirit with many , to praise The Father , opening the prison doors of those in the fires of purgatory or of the world as well ..
Holy Father’s initiative to share the rosaries in Syria – hope those who can help him to do so for the Divine Mercy images also would take note .
Meanwhile, believers , with that sense of grief too , joining the victims , who are on both sides in one sense in this case , thus aid the Queen of Heaven , to bring the reign of peace , healing the deep wounds and driving out the enemy strong
holds of the dragon from one end to the other .
St.George and Mary , Queen of Heaven pray for us all .
There is a wave of hatred to Catholic clergy and the Church all over the world. The few irregularities committed by some clergy may be one reason for it. Here the judge never cared to hear the plea of the accused. A real judge should hear both sides and consider the case and not fully believing the accuser. Also I will argue that if the accuser had a complaint it should have been registered within a week or month of the happening. Simply accusing someone of immorality after many years is sheer nonsense,but rules do not invalidate . There should be a law of limitation as otherwise it is an encouragement for revenge by people any time.
K. C. Thomas:
“Simply accusing someone of immorality after many years is sheer nonsense,but rules do not invalidate. There should be a law of limitation as otherwise it is an encouragement for revenge by people any time.”
***********
I would agree that making accusations years after a crime has been alleged to occur is problematic, but what other recourse is there for young children who have been victimized & frightened by an adult perpetrator? They are easily threatened & manipulated into silence by the abuser & may not have the courage to confront him until they’re adults.
I worry also about our present anti-Catholic atmosphere & have real doubts about Cardinal Pell’s verdict. But beyond giving victims delayed justice you have to remember that there are dangerous predators who will continue to harm children unless someone speaks out. Even if it’s been
decades since their first crimes.
However to have real justice you have to have real evidence & corroboration-both seem scarce in Cardinal Pell’s verdict.
While some are in a cozy monastery, this honorable servant is in prison. One of the signs of satan, I understand, is he turns things upside down and calls evil good and good evil. One of Mother Angelica’s famous lines is “I wouldn’t want to be standing near them on judgment day.”
There wouldn’t be many convicted criminals who’ve enjoyed as much slavering support as George Pell.
George Pell is no Ned Kelly. Why, then, is so much energy being devoted into trying to make him a folk hero for conservatives?
There is still a chance, however small, that he might yet beat the charges in the High Court, but it’s not much of a chance, and whichever way that final appeal goes, there is one outcome you can bet on with confidence: Pell’s defenders will do immense damage to the institution of the courts and the justice system as a whole in the prosecution of their culture war.
Because that’s what this is. The extra-judicial defence of George Pell is not a fight for truth or righteousness – it is simply a continuation of politics by other means.
It is disgraceful.
The systemic abuse of children by paedophile clergy is not a myth or a meme. It is a massive and well-documented atrocity that has taken the lives of an unknown number of victims, and caused vast suffering to many, many more.
It has blighted the existence of survivors and their families and done incalculable damage to the church itself.
A truly conservative response to the conviction of so senior a figure as Pell would not seek to diminish or even negate his crime. A true conservative would accept the vital importance of a perpetrator accepting personal responsibility for his actions and attempting to make amends for them, no matter how impossible that restitution might be.
Instead we get conspiracy theories, special pleading and brazen contempt not just for the court and its officers but also for the victims of the crime.
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/defending-the-indefensible-pell-is-no-ned-kelly-20190827-p52l3l.html
“The extra-judicial defence of George Pell is not a fight for truth or righteousness – it is simply a continuation of politics by other means. It is disgraceful.”
No, your cynical and, yes, politicized, slander of those who believe, with good reason, that Pell is innocent, is slanderous.
Carl, you quote from the article that is linked at the bottom of my post. They are not my words and I believe the situation is much more complex and multi layered that those words suggest. I also believe there is an element of truth to the opinions he has written about. Perhaps I should be more careful in what I post. It is worth stating that there has been numerous statements that have directly attributed motive to my expressed opinions that are unfair, untrue and way off the mark.
……and now I’ve had time to think over the choice of words, I think it a grave injustice that you chose the word slander as a descriptor of my commentary. It does come over as intimidation and a thinly veiled threat and completely unnecessary given the effort I have made to explain myself over many posts.
“I think it a grave injustice that you chose the word slander ”
Quite true; it’s an injustice to the language. It’s written, and therefore I believe the correct word is libel.
Furthermore Carl, It would seem to the casual observer, of which I hope there are many, that It would suit your narrative if my motive was essentially political. I am not sorry to inform you that my motivation is on behalf of the many children, now adults and their families, their broken hearts, bodies and minds, who have suffered abuse under Cardinal Pells watch! Details of which you lot seem to think have no relevance to the legal proceedings because no detailed analysis appears within the articles written so far. So not without reason, my question remains unanswered as to why not! The complete and utter betrayal of their innocence and the many unholy manoeuvrings to negate their just cause, are the subject of my posting here. This is the motivation i have had from since the 1990’s way before I heard anything about culture wars political correctness or Liberal Conservative catholic warring! You state unreservedly of my ” cynical and, yes, politicized, slander of those who believe, with good reason, that Pell is innocent, is slanderous.”
You sir do not know the motive of my heart!
“my motivation is on behalf of the many children, now adults and their families, their broken hearts, bodies and minds, who have suffered abuse under Cardinal Pells watch! Details of which you lot seem to think have no relevance to the legal proceedings”
Because they are not relevant to the legal proceedings, which are about this one person’s accusations about specific acts that he says Cardinal Pell committed.
I have read and written extensively about the Cardinal Pell file.
Many experienced people of good judgement, (including Melbourne Archbishop Peter, international Australian journalist Andrew Bolt, counsel Robert Richter and the lawyer Jesuit Father Frank Brennan S.J.), and who have known Cardinal Pell personally have declared Cardinal Pell to be innocent, not merely not guilty.
My views include that:
1) the search for the truth is continuing
2) the legal system in Australia is not a system designed to establish the truth
3) the chances of Cardinal Pell having a successful Australian High Court legal appeal are low, (his state level appeal was lost)
4) BUT a subsequent application under human rights law to the European based international court of justice has a higher probability of finding Cardinal Pell innocent, based on the public material available to date
To date not one relevant person has stated that they saw the Kid and Choirboy, (the Kid’s fellow chorister, now deceased), leave any post-mass procession and also no relevant person has stated that the Kid and the Choirboy returned to the group of practising choristers at a later time and in a disturbed and alcohol affected state (as would be consistent with the evidence given by the Kid).
To date there is no statement that any contemporaneous material has been sought that would tend to corroborate or contradict either the Kid or Cardinal Pell.
I note that those who claim to have professionally considered the allegations of the Kid, (including the police, the DPP and investigative journalists), have not produced any such material at all.
Regards to all from Peter Halliday at peter.halliday@gmail.com
Mr. Hallam,
I have no idea how old you are, but I can easily imagine how you would have held forth in 1982: “Some mothers have committed infanticide, and therefore Lindy Chamberlain has been rightfully convicted, and anybody who says that she was wrongfully convicted is showing brazen contempt not just for the court and its officers but also for the victim of the crime.”
The disgrace is that you are so fixated on politics and revenge that you seem not to care at all that an examination of the testimony at the trial – and no, I wasn’t there, but I’ve read the reports of it and I’ve read the excerpts provided in the appellate court’s decision, and the reports and excerpts agree – shows that the case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Or are you of the opinion that Judge Mark Weinberg was part of this “disgrace” because he pointed out how flawed the decision was?
“The systemic abuse of children by paedophile clergy is not a myth or a meme. It is a massive and well-documented atrocity that has taken the lives of an unknown number of victims, and caused vast suffering to many, many more.”
Nobody is saying that the abuse is a myth, or that it wasn’t an atrocity that cause horrible suffering. That has nothing to do with whether Cardinal Pell committed this crime.
Every one of those clergy who committed the atrocity to which you refer is a man. Therefore, is someone ever accuses you of sexually assaulting him and tells a story composed of unlikelihood piled on impossibility, with no witnesses who support his story and many who testify that it couldn’t be true, will you be perfectly content if you are convicted in spite of the many shadows of doubts that should have arisen in the jury’s minds? After all, you are a man, and the crimes that were committed were heinous, and therefore you must be guilty.
“George Pell is no Ned Kelly.” I had to look up Ned Kelly, since I’d never heard of him. You’re quite right, Cardinal Pell is no Ned Kelly. Kelly was guilty, and there was plenty of evidence to prove it.
My concern about the conviction is the lack of evidence and the fact that the accuser’s story is full of things that are at the very best unlikely. I haven’t paid as much attention to Mr. Weigel’s discussion of the toxic atmosphere surrounding the case, since I’m less concerned with the reasons for the injustice of the conviction than the fact that it happened. But every post that you have made has pretty much proved Mr. Weigel’s point. You address not at all the many concerns that I, and others, have posted: about the whole “Operation Tethering” which started with a presumption that the Cardinal must be guilty of something and went hunting for someone, anyone, who would accuse him; about the accuser’s shifting story; about the fact that the accuser’s claims are contradicted by the testimony of many other witnesses. All you do is say that terrible things have happened, and that you dislike Cardinal Pell, and that everyone who doesn’t accept the verdict is focused on politics. In other words, you are a living exemplar of the toxic climate Mr. Weigel mentions. I’m left thinking that if the jury was composed of peoople who, like you, have a massive prejudice, a blind spot, a feeble grasp of logic, and a very strange concept of justice, it explains the conviction in the face of what any reasonable person must consider to be reasonable doubts.
“the victims of the crime.”
There was only one complainant. The other boy denied that he had ever been assaulted. I’ve read the claims that “Oh, but often it’s years before a victim is able to talk about it.” I daresay that’s true; but to claim that even though the second boy never made any accusations that would be just what one would expect of a victim” is the invisible man argument. “There’s an invisible man in that chair.” “I don’t see anything.” “Of course! That’s exactly what you would expect to see if there’s an invisible man in the chair!”
“A truly conservative response to the conviction of so senior a figure as Pell would not seek to diminish or even negate his crime. A true conservative would accept the vital importance of a perpetrator accepting personal responsibility for his actions and attempting to make amends for them, no matter how impossible that restitution might be.”
And again, you’re ignoring that fact that we don’t believe that he is guilty, and not for political reasons. A truly conservative response to a perceived injustice is to fight against it. That’s what we’re doing.
LESLIE!! you go girl!!!! Exactly as I would have said it if I had half your brain!!!!L
Well, thank you!