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.
[…]
Once again the faithful are asked to suffer the cancellation of public demonstration of homage to Our Lady. This recalls last year’s locking of Church doors and dispensations at Mass because of its non-essential nature. Is it any wonder that no faith is fast disappearing under the rod of such activity?
Scripture warns against a fear of material. Scripture and seeks to rather provoke fear of the eternal spiritual. (Matthew 10:28) Perennial Magisterial teaching on virtue speaks to courage and hope; where are these demonstrable in Francis? Francis chooses to travel alone with carriers of uncleanliness banned from his path. Rather should we seek and see Our Lord who sacrificed His Holy Humanity so sinners could be cleansed and made like Him.
If avoiding Covid is the reason, why didn’t he cancel the Pachamama worship in St. Peter’s?
The Pope did not have to do what you suggest here because there was the Pachamama icon was never worshipped at the Vatican. It is a lie that is still being spread by those who hate our Pope.
He had his MC place the ceremonial bowl of dirt, which specifically symbolizes Pachamama, an Idol, on St. Peter’s altar at the offertory, where it remained throughout the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. And shortly after that, public Mass was canceled throughout the world and most all the Catholic churches in the whole world shut down for months, unprecedented in the history of the Church. Also it was most assuredly worshipped in the Vatican gardens, by a large circle of individuals including two Franciscans bowed their foreheads down to the ground before the idol.
People in different parts of the world show their respect in different ways. Why should everything be done in the western way, Europeans way that we are so used to. Pagan Romans used to genuflect and Catholics adopted that pagan custom. We place wedding rings on the altar.
It was clearly declared by the Pope that there was no worship. I believe him.
It is extremely curious how hypocritical and contradictory some people can be!
I know a person who tends to idolize Francis as a pope beyond criticism. Yet that same person finds a problem with Eastern Catholic Churches, in communion with the pope and with the Universal Church, simply because those Eastern Churches do not hang upon Francis’ every last word and remain aloof from embroiling RCC controversies.
Now that same person sees no problem with inculturating pagan customs and idols to Roman Catholicism simply because the pope has done so.
I leave you now to go get a grip. Good night and good day.
Mal, I am from Africa and I attend Mass with African Catholics every Sunday. I can tell you with certainty that the worship of a Demon Fertility Idol would never be allowed here. Inculturation here means, at most, using traditional African musical instruments and dress (the laity, not the Priest); it does not involve any change in worship or the sacraments.
What Francis did in 2019 is despicable, and the Covid epidemic is the Divine Punishment for it. Francis needs to atone for his violation of the 1st Commandment in sackcloth and ashes.
Interestingly, Covid spread to Italy AFTER the Pachamamas were honored, blessed, and brought into Vatican cathedrals. One could say the Pachamama idol worship led to God’s allowing Covid.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ewtns-fr-mitch-pacwa-condemns-pachamama-worship-at-amazon-synod/
meiron, many years ago I walked into a classroom and on a wall I saw a picture placed quite prominently. The students told me that that was a picture of Jesus. However, I knew that it was not. It was a photograph of Jeffrey Hunter, the actor who had played Jesus. I wonder how many people prayed to pictures like that? And many more? All pictures, paintings of human beings and sold to us as Jesus.
I often wonder how our practices would have been if the Church had remained in Israel instead of moving to Greece and Rome which had icons of Gods.
What is your point?
Such comments seem to some as coming from the dark side of the moon. Catholics do not pray to pictures.
(Although, there’s the tale of a Protestant minister complaining to a priest that such is so; and the post Vatican II priest retorted that, no, we do not pray to statutes or pictures, we pray to banners!)
As for St. Paul and the Church crossing over to Macedonia and then to Athens, this is the Providential reason that truths of the self-revealing God can be expressed, however finitely, in the conceptual language of “reason” and “persons” and the “one and the many.” Part of the early Councils dealing with the Trinity, the three Persons of the Trinity in One God, and the two natures of Christ in one Person.
The revealed Faith–more than a religion–went the direction of analogous human reason (analogous to the interior mystery of God), rather than in the other direction of symbols which account for the many mystery religions that flourished in the late Roman Empire. Even the Jews did not remain in Israel, but dispersed into the Diaspora following the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.
In short, the Catholic Church is in history, but not of history, founded by Christ and indwelled by the Holy Spirit.
Yes, it is true that we Catholics do not worship pictures and icons, however, they are blessed and considered holy. So, why would you still persist in Protestant style accusing the Pope of worshipping an icon which represents the motherness of earth to the Amazonian Catholics? And still deliberately confusing it with the Andean (not Amazonian) pagan goddess which looks completely different. The icon was erroneously called Pachamama but this is not what the Amazonian Catholics call it.
Pope Francis, a very faithful Catholic, who is devoted to our Lady knows very well the difference between worshipping God and venerating our Lady and the saints. The so-called Pachamama in question, represents the life-sustaining gifts from God that are made available to us in and through the earth. They show their gratitude in this way because, unlike us “civilized” people, they live off the earth. We have our cars, wedding rings, and houses blessed. Just different.
Wikipedia seems to know more than some Catholics about what the Pachamamma idol represents. It has nothing to offer Catholicism. It contradicts Catholicism. There is a diabolical disorientation within those who cannot see.
“Pachamama is a goddess revered by the indigenous peoples of the Andes. In Inca mythology she is an “Earth Mother” type goddess,[1] and a fertility goddess who presides over planting and harvesting, embodies the mountains, and causes earthquakes. She is also an ever-present and independent deity who has her own creative power to sustain life on this earth.”
There is a presentation on Pachamama by Fr. Mitch Pawca on YouTube titled “Fr. Mitch Pawca on Pachamama idol worship”:
*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHCxjaWUZTg
*
He said that the people of the Andes place Pachamama above Jesus and Mary.
S meiron, why did the other countries – India, Indonesia etc – get Covid. They did not have anything to do with the icons. Faulty reasoning from a website that does spread such falsehood.
“The pope will ask the Virgin Mary in prayer “to protect the Romans, the city in which they live, and the sick who need Her maternal protection everywhere in the world,” the statement said.”
This is the beautiful message that should warm our hearts. Pope Francis has always been devoted to our Lady, who would appreciate the continuation of this devotion in a manner that accommodates the sacredness of the occasion and the physical wellbeing of the people. Mary, who was concerned about the lack of wine at a wedding, will be equally concerned about the devastating effects of the virus. Well, that’s the Mother that I know.