The McCarrick Report: Four villains, one saint, and many unanswered questions

The Report is helpful in some ways but sins by omission in many other ways. Its general thrust and principal purpose, however, is clear and that is to declare Pope Francis blameless throughout.

Then-Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick waves to fellow bishops as he attends a prayer service with Pope Francis and more than 300 U.S. bishops at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle in Washington Sept. 23, 2015. The first day of the virtual fall assembly of the U.S. Catholic bishops, Nov. 16, 2020, included discussion about the Vatican report on Theodore McCarrick, the ongoing pandemic and the church's response to racism. (CNS photo/Jonathan Newton, The Washington Post, pool)

Unconfirmed stories a couple of months ago indicated that the long-awaited “McCarrick Report” ran to 600 pages; as it turns out, the final count of the English text is 449. Some very thoughtful Vatican person provided the media with a fourteen-page summary. I wish to be even more gracious and offer our readers a two-sentence summary: There are four villains and one saint. The villains are: Karol Wojtyla, Stanislaus Dziwisz, Joseph Ratzinger, and Carlo Maria Viganò; the saint is Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

The document, in spite of its legal structure, reads like a novel; in fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone is already planning a film! The overall length and the 1410 footnotes would lead one to conclude that it is comprehensive and fully transparent. A closer reading argues against such an interpretation. Let’s explore this a bit more.

It is clear to any fair-minded person that Theodore McCarrick – regardless of his guilt or innocence – was used by Pope Francis as his personal “trophy” to wave before the bishops attending the Vatican summit on sex abuse in February 2018: “The laicization of McCarrick is proof that I (Francis) am serious about this issue.” However, is that what the McCarrick Report reveals?

The testimonies of at least one of the mothers and one of the priests are simply weird and hardly credible by any standard. Is that why they were given such play in the Report? To suggest (subtly) that many would-be witnesses to McCarrick’s abuse were not the most convincing, thus exonerating authorities for their lack of action? I would not be opposed to such a suggestion, by the way. That said, with all the play given to testimonies, why are we not privy to McCarrick’s testimony before the tribunal in the Archdiocese of New York?

The alleged basis for McCarrick’s laicization was abuse of minors (and solicitation during the administration of the Sacrament of Penance). Why are those testimonies not included, especially since those two accusers have been very public with their stories? Is it because those stories are not, in fact, very credible (as many psychologists and law enforcement personnel have indicated)? McCarrick’s modus operandi did not gravitate toward kids; his interest was in young men. The solicitation accusation is bizarre on the very face of it; if McCarrick had such ready access to would-be victims, why would he need to prostitute the Sacrament of Penance? One of the priests alleging abuse says that he witnessed McCarrick and another priest engaged in sexual activity and that they then went to confession to each other (thus incurring an automatic excommunication), with McCarrick joking to the supposed onlooker that someday he might get to hear a bishop’s confession! Bizarre beyond imagining.

The document gives great weight to psychotherapist Richard Sipe, an ex-priest and monk. This is strange indeed as Sipe was virulently anti-clerical and an inveterate opponent of priestly celibacy. I had the unfortunate task of having to rebut his wild assertions on the priesthood on CNN’s Larry King Show more than two decades ago.

The Report also states that McCarrick’s mother died when he was twenty. This is not possible since then-Auxiliary Bishop of New York, Terence Cooke, presided at Mrs. McCarrick’s funeral (Cooke was not a bishop until 1965, thus putting McCarrick himself at least at the age of 35).

The Report never alludes to McCarrick’s years at The Catholic University of America in Washington or to his time as President of the Catholic University of Puerto Rico. Is that because investigations turned up nothing untoward? If so, that should have been said. If, on the other hand, those two venues were not taken into consideration, that is a major oversight.

While the Report does mention that McCarrick was responsible for delivering the 2004 judgment of Cardinal Ratzinger to the American bishops on dealing with the phenomenon of pro-abortion Catholic politicians, it neglects to note that McCarrick’s oral presentation to the bishops deleted the paragraph which cited canon 915 on the inadmissibility of such persons to Holy Communion.1 That was surely one of the primary reasons why Ratzinger as Benedict XVI took more seriously accusations against McCarrick’s character.2

Papa Bergoglio has consistently pled ignorance to McCarrick’s alleged dalliances. That flies in the face of the evidence. Viganò claims he discussed this issue with the Pope on at least two occasions (and, in one of Francis’ infamous interviews, he admitted to a possible fleeting recollection); Archbishop Giovanni Becciu (whatever his other deficiencies may be) testified (in his then-role as sostituto) that he informed Bergoglio twice (the Pope admits to one such conversation). The Report defends Francis’ non-action in this regard by indicating that June 2013 was a very busy month for Bergoglio! Cardinal Pietro Parolin (Secretary of State) attests to Viganò’s correspondence with him in 2014 about McCarrick and to his own discussion of the case with Francis in 2016 (the Pope says he doesn’t remember that but would “defer” to the recall of Parolin). Further, there is a constant flow of letters of McCarrick to Francis informing him of his various and sundry jaunts, so that Francis is quoted as suggesting that McCarrick be left alone since he might be “useful.”

Archbishop Viganò is cited 306 times. Why was he never interviewed for this project? Surely, his original “testimony” was the impetus for this entire investigation. In truth, Viganò is treated with undisguised contempt throughout and with thinly veiled accusations of careerism and bitterness (his behavior in the Curia and his repeated efforts to bring McCarrick to justice belie such suggestions). Cardinal Marc Ouellet (Prefect of the Congregation of Bishops) says that he instructed Viganò to open a full investigation into McCarrick but that Viganò never carried out that mission. Is that true? Viganò needs to respond to that. It is also a puzzlement as to why Viganò repeatedly wrote glowing letters of approval to McCarrick.

One of the running observations is that McCarrick bought influence among the power-brokers of the Vatican. The Report acknowledges that he did indeed make “gifts” to various officials.3 Why are those beneficiaries of McCarrick’s generosity not named, along with the amounts of the gifts? This omission brings to mind the report emerging from the Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston not long ago, divulging that the former Ordinary had done the same, while failing to name the prelates who received such gifts; negative public opinion eventually forced a full disclosure.

A follow-up to the accusation of bribery is that such behavior gave McCarrick sway in the appointment of bishops. Footnote 1302 takes cognizance of that suggestion but says that McCarrick’s letter to Francis on a possible candidate for Chicago, as a matter of fact, did not mention Archbishop Blaise Cupich (who eventually got the post), and that – although widely rumored that McCarrick was responsible for the appointment of Archbishop Joseph Tobin to Newark – there is no record of such an attempt. The word on the ground was that the promoter of Cupich was not McCarrick by Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga (the head of Francis’ Council of Cardinals and a close confidant of the Pope). On the Tobin appointment, we have McCarrick’s own bragging about it in a lecture he delivered at Villanova University, when he likewise boasts of advancing the candidacy of Bergoglio for the papacy!

There is one person conspicuous for his absence in this whole tale, and that is Cardinal Justin Rigali, who began his service at the Holy See in the English section of the Secretariat of State in 1964. After a hiatus from 1966 to 1970, serving in the nunciature in Madagascar, Rigali returned to Rome as the head of the English section of the Secretariat of State and became the English translator for Pope Paul VI, accompanying him on his various apostolic journeys. In 1985, he was named President of the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy (the oldest diplomatic school in the world), also then receiving episcopal consecration. In 1989, he was named Secretary of the Congregation of Bishops (thus, the Number Two Man in the dicastery). It boggles the mind why a man with such a portfolio would not be a key witness to the McCarrick saga.

Now, to a few critiques from the ecclesiastical “right side” of the aisle.

One commentator says that McCarrick sojourned in Switzerland at least twenty times, thus connecting him to the St. Gallen Mafia. The Report documents four visits to Switzerland, the first being his trip there after high school graduation. The other three visits were all on official Church business, in the company of many other participants. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the Report here, especially since assertions to the contrary have no evidence to back them up.

Other commentators have expressed amazement that the word “homosexual/homosexuality” never appears in the document. That is patently false as a word-search reveals at least eleven uses of the word. However, even were the word absent (which it isn’t), the entire document deals precisely with that problem. The word “Trinity” is not found in the New Testament, but the reality of it is omnipresent.

Yet others have strongly suggested that Cardinal Angelo Sodano (former Secretary of State) was responsible for McCarrick’s rise in the hierarchy. This makes no sense since McCarrick was consecrated a bishop eleven years before Sodano was! In fact, McCarrick was already the Archbishop of Newark a year before Sodano’s consecration. Was Sodano a protector of McCarrick as Secretary of State? That is quite possible, as he certainly was with Legionary Father Maciel.

So, where do the Popes fit into this drama?

I believe that the Report honestly says that John Paul II did not accept stories of McCarrick’s alleged misbehavior for two reasons: first, his experience in Poland of Communist efforts to derail a good priest or bishop through false accusations;4 second, his knowledge of McCarrick’s very effective and faithful service as a diocesan bishop.5 Efforts by the gang at the National Catholic Reporter and their accomplices at the New York Times to besmudge the reputation of John Paul, calling for the revocation of his cult, are odious but totally in keeping with their hatred of everything he stood for as Pope.

What about Pope Benedict? We know with what dispatch and deliberateness he handled the Maciel scandal. Rather than subjecting the old man to an ecclesiastical trial, Benedict graciously decreed (in writing) that Maciel was to withdraw from public life for a life of prayer and penance. Maciel complied. Benedict’s similar suggestion (not in writing, however) for McCarrick was flaunted by him from Day One. Being an honorable man himself, Ratzinger tends to presume that everyone else is, too. Cardinal Giovanni Re as Prefect of the Congregation of Bishops regularly raised red flags about McCarrick’s peregrinations, as did Archbishops Gabriel Montalvo and Pietro Sambi (nuncios to the United States), both of whom died “on the job.” In a recent reflection for CWR, George Weigel observed that McCarrick had “gamed” the system. That is undoubtedly true. He also knew how to manipulate and capitalize on the lack of communication between the various dicasteries of the Holy See, as well as with the several nuncios.

Of course, the massive elephant in the middle of the living room is that rumors of misbehavior by the former Cardinal were rife for decades and any priest or bishop alive in the 1980s who says he didn’t know about them needs to take a dose of truth serum. However – and it is a big “However” – no one was willing to make a formal complaint – and that includes a delegation of laity who went to Rome years ago with their concerns and who were strongly encouraged by Vatican officials to sign a formal complaint; they never did. So, yes, John Paul was right to discount unsubstantiated rumors. Who among us would want to be tried and convicted on the basis of anonymous rumors? In fact, at times even the rumors about McCarrick were investigated and came back with little to no evidence. One of my over-arching concerns about his ecclesiastical conviction and reduction to the lay state is precisely the failure of this Report to share with all the testimony which led to those decisions and actions of the Holy See. We are entitled to know who said what, who took those testimonies seriously, and why. Those questions have not been handled, even in a cursory fashion.

In summary, there is plenty of blame to go around in this whole unseemly and dismal affair. The Report is helpful in some ways but sins by omission in many other ways. Its general thrust and principal purpose, however, is clear and that is to declare Pope Francis blameless throughout. One is tempted to re-name the document Santo subito!6


1The missing paragraph read as follows:

4. Apart from an individuals’s judgement about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).

2I was present at that Fall meeting of the episcopal conference. Indeed, for twenty-five years, I attended every Fall session (serving as a theological consultant for a number of bishops).

3We need to note that there is a legitimate presentation of an honorarium to visiting prelates, just as any speaker would expect to be compensated for his time and effort. Some lay folk have the impression that clergy survive on plenary indulgences!

4This mindset of John Paul, interestingly, was also responsible for the naming of Bergoglio as auxiliary bishop of Buenos Aires. The story goes that Bergoglio was blocked by the Father General of the Jesuits as being unfit for any position of authority in the Church. Cardinal Antonio Guarracino, then-Archbishop of Buenos Aires, appealed directly to the Pope, who (it is said) determined that the Jesuits were keeping Bergoglio out of the episcopate because of his orthodoxy and, as they say, the rest is history.

5McCarrick was the founding Ordinary of the Diocese of Metuchen, which he put on a very firm footing; indeed, his performance in Metuchen led Cardinal John O’Connor to be a strong supporter of McCarrick’s promotion to the Archdiocese of Newark, as his written assessment attests. His tenure in Newark was marked by pastoral zeal and orthodoxy, taking an Archdiocese that had been put on the brink of schism by his predecessor and bringing it back into full communion. Those facts cannot be gainsaid and should not be.

6“Make him a saint immediately!” The cry of the mourners in St. Peter’s Square at the obsequies of Pope John Paul II.

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 Peter M.J. Stravinskas 258 Articles
Reverend Peter M.J. Stravinskas founded The Catholic Answer in 1987 and The Catholic Response in 2004, as well as the Priestly Society of Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, a clerical association of the faithful, committed to Catholic education, liturgical renewal and the new evangelization. Father Stravinskas is also the President of the Catholic Education Foundation, an organization, which serves as a resource for heightening the Catholic identity of Catholic schools.


  1. So far, those laity were who flew to Rome in a vain attempt to keep McCarrick from being appointed as Archbishop of Washington have never identified themselves. Are they deceased? Are they afraid?

  2. Thank you for this article.
    Ab Vigano should have been interviewed and names should have been mentioned.
    I agree wholeheartedly with those who say that the word homosexuality is not mentioned or mentioned enough. Even if it, obviously, is mentioned, it is far from enough. Even if anyone with an undisturbed mind is able to draw the simple conclusion that Mc Carric’s abuse of mainly young seminarians is of a homosexual nature, the fact that homosexuality is at the very core of at least 86 percent of all abuse cases in the US, is downplayed in practically each and every article on clergy sex abuse. As if many in the Church hope that avoiding or scarcely mentioning the widespread homosexuality among clergy would make the phenomenon disappear among the public.
    Knowing that even an American Cardinal, in the face of reporters during the conference on abuse in Rome, almost two years ago, denied that the abuse cases of teenage boys and men had anyrhing to do with homosexuality, one should not be too surprised that homosexuality is downplayed even in this report.

  3. Jesus came to save the sinner. He knows what is in our hearts.

    Tough to watch this ‘movie’ unfold though. To say that the leaders of the Church have perception problems regarding their (appointed) disciples, and were even obtuse when warned by their disciples, is an obvious understatement.

  4. “Its general thrust and principal purpose, however, is clear and that is to declare Pope Francis blameless throughout.”

    The detailed history doesn’t even get to the papacy of Francis until page 393 (of 449).

    What the report does work hard at, is refuting the claims of the “Vigano Statement” of August 22, 2018.

    • Don’t bother trying to point out inconsistencies in these schizoid articles. The only thing that matters to CWR is proving that Francis is a Marxist Homosexual Lavender Mafia who will officiate gay weddings himself under a Pachamama statue – this has been the thrust of all CWR articles about Francis for the last 6 or so years. It keeps their older readers happy, so I guess “who am I to judge?”

      It’s always funny to juxtapose the lavish praise of faith and intellect the site gives to John Paul II and Benedict, and the craven obviousness of the evil gay prelates who flaunt their horrible heresies for the world to see… yet these same clueless catamite cardinals are crafty enough to pull one (or one hundred) over on these supremely intelligent men who, as we are told in other articles, that even the Devil was afraid of!

  5. I would like to know if Mr McCarrick had to turn all his money over to the church since we had to pay all the people he abused. He gets free room and board from our church where all our men would be in jail

  6. McCarrick’s antics are ancient history. The ongoing scandal of sexually active U.S. bishops engaged in consensual sexual activity never gets addressed. These men continue to advance in the hierarchy and their actions are overlooked by their brother bishops because they do not abuse minors. Time for some fraternal correction.

  7. John Paul II visited 129 nations, was fluent in eleven languages, and could communicate phonetically in nearly three dozen more. How many people have ever traveled to129 nations? A morally weak man could not possibly accomplish that preaching of the Gospel to every nation, as John Paul II. virtually did.

    The present pope defends same-sex unions, yet forbids giving priests the right to take a woman in marriage, as though Jesus of Nazareth forbade priests to marry. This latter pronouncement was based on property issues — that other churches find ways of accommodating.

    • Mr. Doerr. You might study the shelves of books defending priestly celibacy before trivializing it to one simplistic purpose.

    • The Anglican clergy have long been able to “take a woman in marriage,” but that’s certainly not prevented a significant homosexual subset from emerging there and in other Protestant denominations. And it’s not a recent development, either. Married or celibate, what we need most of all is HOLY priests.

  8. Glad to see the efforts to also bring forth the good of the person in focus of the article .
    The above book that includes prayers to ask the Holy Spirit , to heal and purify the memory ..? those who have forgotten certain things , thus blessed in The Spirit ..
    in line with the every day miracle of women being helped to forget the labor pains ..
    Interesting too to see how St.John Paul II who was targeted by the communists is the one chosen by The Lord , to help bring them down ..Pope Francis too ,
    ? disliked by those who did not agree with his deeply compassionate attitudes towards the suffering , yet ever faithful to The Spirit , through his ardent love for The Mother and not wanting to side with anything that would grieve her – even if that meant the suffering of not being approved by those in power – The Lord chooses to bless him too , to use the goodness and power of compassion with holiness , just as needed in our times .

    Thy Kingdom come , Thy Will be done !

  9. Thank you Rev. Stravinskas for your article “The McCarrick Report…:.
    I have read the report. It seems to blame a dead guy (the previous Pope); a guy who is not in the “chain of command”, (the retired Pope); the “Whistleblower”: the “system”; the “procedures”. But what about the present Pope who has been in the job for a number of years? What about those close to the Present Pope? What about all the Cardinals and Bishops who knew, “or should have known”, and yet did nothing? As an experienced Lawyer I can usually smell a well designed cover-up. This one by the Vatican is truly “World Class”.

    Francis J. Tepedino

  10. Catholic psychologist Dr. Fitzgibbons, who personally reported McCarrick to the Congregation for Bishops in the 1990s, declared in writing, on this site, on Nov 11th, that the anonymous authors of the report are guilty of “fabricationse reort and falsehoods” and omissions.

    He called the report a continuation of the Church hierarchy’s coverup of clergy homosexual abuse.

    The report is submitted under the signature of “His Eminence” the Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Parolin, engineer of the Secret-Communist-Vatican-Accord.

    The Vatican Secretariat of State, what does this cabal have to do with sex scandals and corruption?

    Q1 – Which Congregation was in Charge of Sex Abuse Investigations for the Vatican under Pope JP2, during the long years that such investigations were covered up?
    A1 – The Vatican Secretariat of State under one of Parolin’s predecessors, “His Eminence” Sodano.

    Q2 – Who protected Maciel from investigation under JP2?
    A2 – The very same Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Sodano.

    Q3 – Who was put in charge of the 2nd, irregular process to promote McCarrick, and overturn the original decision against McCarrick under the regular process?
    A3 – The very same Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Sodano.

    Q4 – Who finally brought down Maciel, overcoming the Secretary of State Sodano?
    A4 – Joseph Ratzinger, after being elected Pope Benedict, using the Congregation for the Faith to investigate Maciel, because The Secretariat of State has covered up the Maciel case (indeed, JP2 finally gave sex abuse investigations to the CDF, under Ratzinger, shortly before the end of his pontificate).

    Q5 – Who finally demanded McCarricks resignation, after mounting concern about McCarrick’s crimes?
    A5 – Pope Benedict.

    Q6 – Who did the Pontiff Francis use to write the McCarrick Report?
    A6 – The very same Vatican Secretariat of State, which covered up for Maciel, and ran the 2nd irregular process to dismiss the testimony about McCarrick’s homosexual predation, ensuring that McCarrick was named Archbishop of Washington.

    The Pontiff Francis should resign, and the Church should dismantle the sexually and financially corrupt Secretariat of State, and demote it where it belongs.

    And the Church should restore the Congregation for the Faith as the most senior Congregation in the Vatican, where it stood for centuries, until 1970, when Pope Paul demoted the Congregation for the Faith, and promoted the corrupted Secretariat of State as the top Congregation, chosing “the world” as the top priority, over the Faith itself.

    Extra Bonus Q7 – What Congregation did the Pontiff Francis make “super-charged” with near universal control over all other Congregations, in his recent “Vatican Reorganization”?
    A7 – Yes, the same Secretariat of State, authors of The a Maciel scandal, the world-wide sex abuse coverup, the McCarrick promotion, and the “false and fabricated” McCarrick Report.

    The Dark Lord If all: the Pontiff Francis, who orchestrated and presided over idolatry to the occult demon Pachamama, in Rome, in October 2019.

  11. Many Web Sites and newspaper article are proclaiming that Pederasty, within the Priesthood is its current most serious problem, augmented presently by former Cardinal McCarrick, as here we see the corruption of young men, who presumably entered the Priesthood, intending to live the celibate life. Some of whom may have acknowledged having homosexual tendencies, especially via the secrecy of the Sacrament of Confession, easy prey to be groomed/ensnared/corrupted by the likes of Cardinal McCarrick, who possibly was ensnared also as a young seminarian, many years ago.

    Not all priests are Christian as I can testify, as I have witnessed many times, over the last thirty-five years, actions that incorporate intimidation, duplicity, gesture, implied talk, murmurings and symbolism, no (Worldly) lawyer or civil agency can expose what these evil men use, while smiling, as they are the tools of the Evil One.

    Homosexual rings of corruption are the fruit of these manipulative men, but they are not necessarily homosexual themselves, but they are depraved and have existed since the early formation of the church. And they work to undermine what is left of the faithful by any means possible.

    So, it is fair to say what we are now seeing is only the tip of the iceberg, as these onward flourishing manifestations of evil, emanate from a large mass of spiritual corruption, and this corruption is Satanic in nature. It is clearly evident that this evil is held together by a spider’s (Controlling Mind) web of corruption.

    Understandably many are calling with varying degrees of intensity, for a cleansing of the church, which is creating an atmosphere of fear/anger/hatred, if this continues unabated it will grow, creating a culture of fear, manifest as intolerance/bigotry towards all with homosexual tendencies (practicing or not) resulting in, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

    Sadly, many have been devoured, principally because there appears to be no one to turn to within the Priesthood, who can be trusted, as all are compromised to some degree by the self-serving structures (Circles) within Clericalism, in permitting evil to reign these words are apt
    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”
    Edmund Burke

    So yes ‘It is a time of purging and purification, a time of repentance and forgiveness, a time of pruning for new growth’
    But how do you separate the Wheat from the Chaff?
    You cannot, as the wheat and the weeds must grow together until harvest time. What are we to do?

    Only a new spiritual awakening, one that bears witness to the Truth in humility, can liberate those who have been ensnared within these circles of corruption, which encompass an unfaithful docile priesthood, that turned a blind eye to corruption, with its many different faces, they can be no self-righteous pointing fingers in this situation.

    It could be said the Church needs an Amnesty within herself, I believe this can only come about by looking at/embracing the ‘gentle’ cleansing grace of humility publicly, if she did so, the church would grow rather than stagnate. The cleansing that has to take place needs to start at the top, as Our Lord Himself via the true divine Mercy Message/Image one of Broken Man, has exposed the reality of a self-serving elitism embedded in Clericalism, emanating from arrogance before God and mankind. This exposer of hubris by divine intervention, demands a counter response by those who would be faithful before His inviolate Will (Word). And this can only be done in humility, as a humble heart (Church) will never cover its tracks or hide its short comings, and in doing so confers authenticity, as it walks in its own vulnerability /weakness/brokenness in trust/faith before God and mankind.
    It is a heart (Church) to be trusted, as it ‘dispels’ darkness within its own ego/self, in serving God (Truth) first, before any other.

    “God will not despise a broken spirit and contrite heart” and neither will the faithful. The leadership has nothing to fear, no matter how compromised, as the cleansing grace of humility (Full ‘open acknowledgement of past failings/sins) is the communal bond of love that holds His flock together.

    “I desire that this picture be venerated first in your chapel and then throughout the world “
    Venerate the true divine mercy Image one of Broken Man/Church, in this given humble pray.

    “Jesus, I trust in thee”

    Please consider reading further information relating to the True Divine Mercy Image/Message via the link

    kevin your brother
    In Christ

    • St. Faustina’s Diary has a passage that is very appropriate, Diary 445:
      445 When I came for adoration, an inner recollection took hold of me immediately, and I saw the Lord Jesus tied to a pillar, stripped of His clothes, and the scourging began immediately. I saw four men who took turns at striking the Lord with scourges. My heart almost stopped at the sight of these tortures. The Lord said to me, I suffer even greater pain than that which you see. And Jesus gave me to know for what sins He subjected Himself to the scourging: these are sins of impurity. Oh, how dreadful was Jesus’ moral suffering during the scourging! Then Jesus said to me, Look and see the human race in its present condition. In an instant, I saw horrible things: the executioners left Jesus, and other people started scourging Him; they seized the scourges and struck the Lord Mercilessly. These were priests, religious men and women, and high dignitaries of the Church, which surprised me greatly. There were lay people of all ages and walks of life. All vented their malice on the innocent Jesus. Seeing this, my heart fell as if into a mortal agony. And while the executioners had been scourging Him, Jesus had been silent and looking into the distance; but when those other souls I mentioned scourged Him, Jesus closed His eyes, and a soft but most painful moan escaped from His Heart. And Jesus gave me to know in detail the gravity of the malice of the ungrateful souls: You see, this is a torture greater than My death. Then my lips too fell silent, and I began to experience (186) the agony of death, and I felt that no one would comfort me or snatch me from that state but the One who had put me into it. Then the Lord said to me, I see the sincere pain of your heart which brought great solace to My Heart. See and take comfort.

    • Had it not been for the fact that this article was written by Father Stravinskas, I would not have taken the time to Read — The Good Franciscan Sisters back in the 50’s warned us about the Press and to always Question the Truth of the matter If over 60 Percent of these rumors are false then these men of the cloth are being crucified along with our Lord. Father mentioned Cardinal Cook in the article and how he was attacked for Covering up abuse. Pope John Paul did not buy this report either — When touring Rome when my Son was a Seminarian there, I was given a Tour of the Basilicas, and it was like touring Museums for me — However, when we went to St Mary Majo, Cardina Cook was there, officiating at a Marion Service. Those who bought into the False rumors — Lies in this case need to read the Book, Visions, where a young Indian talks about what a dedicated Priest he was, and responsible for his Conversion. As Pope Francis tells us — We are all gifts, and we all have Flaws — We all need to be on our Knees and living in the present times, and concerned about the take over of our Freedom to Worship — and our right to LIFE. My Son-in law’s dad recently left Terra Firma, and being in a Nursing Home with no family there — leaves a sad remembrance, and healing needs to take place. Having worked in Hospice, I now know that No one dies alone — Jesus and Mary are always there!! My Macular degeneration is closing in, or I would be out there with Catholic City today, as they place Sacred Sacramentals here in God’s Country — For the sake of His Sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world — totus tuus

  12. After reading the article and the comments I plead guilty of ignorance to the accomplishment. What penalty was placed on McCarrick? Where is he now? Did he receive the proper penalty? Given the mess at the Vatican why was McCarrick not tried in a civil court. If the hierarchy granted McCarrick a free pass his victims will forever painfully have their lives changed.

5 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. The McCarrick Report: Four villains, one saint, and many unanswered questions - Catholic Mass Search
  2. FRIDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
  3. McCarrick Report Reductio ad Absurdam « Catholic Insight
  4. The McCarrick Report: Four villains, one saint, and many unanswered questions – On God's Payroll
  5. The McCarrick Report: Who’s to Judge Theodore McCarrick? - Catholic Stand %

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.