Denver Newsroom, Nov 11, 2020 / 05:10 pm (CNA).- Ordinarily, a news analysis attempts to bring some context or expertise to a situation, in order to assess why something has happened, what might happen next, and whether any of it will prove to be important.
A news analysis often speculates about what newsmakers will do: At CNA, analysis considers often what the pope might do, or USCCB leaders, or bishops of prominent dioceses.
But this analysis will speculate about what ordinary Catholics – people who practice the faith and love the Lord and try to follow Jesus – will do after the publication of the Vatican’s McCarrick Report.
To do that, some context in this analysis will be personal. There is a reason I offer this personal narrative. Please bear with me.
I began working for the Catholic Church in 2005, while I was in canon law school. After finishing my canon law degree, in 2007 I began working regularly on cases involving clergy misconduct.
I have sat with priests guilty of sexual assault and coercion, of grooming young men, of acting with serial disregard for the promises of their priesthood and the spiritual health of their victims. I have also sat with priests falsely accused of those things. I have seen problems ignored, and I have seen problems treated with the attention they deserve.
I have seen priests get justice, and I have sometimes seen them face terrible injustice. I have seen victims mistreated, and victims treated with compassion and respect. I have seen cases in which every rule and protocol is followed, and cases in which most of them are ignored.
Before the initial McCarrick allegations were made public in June 2018, I had already seen some things. As friends dealt with grief and shock, I told some cynically “Now you know why I’m ticked off all the time.”
I had not known about McCarrick, but I knew about clerical abuse, and about the sins of omission and commission that allow it to happen.
The 449 pages of the McCarrick Report detail a story decades long, in which institutional and personal failures allowed a man who abused his power to act with serial and serious immorality — to, put simply, hurt people.
It includes accounts of both cowardice and courage, of institutional blindspots exploited by a manipulator, of naïveté, misplaced kindness, and ill-placed trust, of dysfunction, bureaucratic ineptitude, and malice. The report demonstrates that sin begets sin – it recounts stories of abusers who were themselves abused. It depicts the exploitation of crises for personal gain.
The report documents the damage wrought by a crippling bias towards institutional self-preservation, ironic for a Church that follows a crucified Lord.
There are few heroes: A mother who tried her best to speak out. A priest who blew the whistle to protect seminarians. A cardinal who came to realize, only over time, that he needed to make clear a serious problem.
The McCarrick Report also traces a broad trend of growing awareness of the importance of addressing abuse allegations, and addressing them properly. An increased understanding that presuming on good will is not helpful in the presence of manipulators. Efforts, often faltering, and sometimes failing, to learn from previous mistakes. But even amid that trend, there are appalling personal failures at every stage of McCarrick’s career.
The report does not document, or seem even to consider seriously, how McCarrick’s ambiguous and unmonitored financial situation enabled his decades of abuse. It mentions briefly his ability as a fundraiser, but offers no forensic analysis of his discretionary accounts. U.S. dioceses maintain records of those accounts, and to date have given no indication they plan to release them.
The report addresses bishops who lied for McCarrick, and about him, to the Holy See, but it does not ask why those bishops were willing to lie. It does not give serious attention to McCarrick’s social networks and their influence on the life of the Church – mention is made of a friend leaking high-level documents to McCarrick in the Vatican, but no attention is given to what influence networks that friend has. Many analysts have said it does not address whether there remain in ministry bishops who were gravely negligent, or even who compounded or facilitated cover-ups.
It brings many things to light, but the report is not a complete account of the McCarrick affair. A complete account may never emerge. Further, the Vatican’s report does not seem to consider present-day implications of McCarrick’s life and ministry, nor to draw lessons for the Church beyond McCarrick.
Questions remain, and those questions are very likely to go unanswered. Catholics who hope to see particular individuals brought to justice are likely to go disappointed.
And new scandals will inevitably emerge.
Since the retirement of Theodore McCarrick, there have already been some institutional reforms designed to prevent a situation like McCarrick’s from happening again. Institutional audits in U.S. dioceses, review boards, the promulgation of Vos estis lux mundi. Pope Francis or the U.S. bishops may well add more layers of policy reform.
But Pope Francis has emphasized that policy reform can not substitute for personal integrity. And the McCarrick Report demonstrates how much personal integrity actually matters. The report will likely bring statements from bishops committing to that personal integrity, and it might even inspire real conversion to that effect among some bishops and Church leaders.
Inevitably, though, there will be new failures in the Church’s life, because the Church is both human and divine: The mystical Body of Christ protected in certain ways by the Holy Spirit, and a community of sinners, each of them in need of a savior, few of them yet saints.
The Church is always and everywhere holy— its members are not usually so.
That paradox is a challenge to every believer.
But the future for the Church in the U.S. seems to depend a great deal on how ordinary Catholics respond to disappointment, discouragement, and somewhat unresolved scandal.
Religious disaffiliation is on the rise in the U.S. – a growing number of Americans identify themselves with no religion, or have no religious practice. And many ordinarly practicing Catholics are out of the habit of going to Sunday Mass, because of the pandemic. It will be unsurprising if the McCarrick scandal exacerbates religious disaffiliation, especially among young Catholics, who say in surveys that they prioritize the perceived personal integrity of leaders ahead of institutional affiliation.
Within the Church, there is a small but growing pocket of Catholics who are increasingly strident toward the authority of the pope and of U.S. bishops. In crises past, pockets like those have eventually become schisms. That seems practically unlikely in the contemporary U.S., but it is not impossible or unprecedented — there are more than 25,000 members of the “Polish National Catholic Church,” a schismatic group that began in the U.S in the early 20th century.
The point is that scandals have the capacity to discourage the practice of the faith, to foster cynicism, anger, bitterness, or indifference.
Hence the personal narrative.
My own experience has taught me that confronting the oft-disappointing humanity of the Church is an exercise in accepting that disappointment is real, and that it can be only be relieved by embracing the cross, and the Crucified Savior.
In the spiritual life, moments of disappointment present a choice: One can nurture anger or indifference, or one can turn to Christ on the cross.
One of those choices brings life, the other does not.
That’s true for the spiritual life, and for the mission of the Church itself.
A movement of Catholics who respond to crisis with an increase of prayer, fasting, charity, and evangelization is counter-intuitive. It is also a counter-witness to the “black eye for the Church” contained in the McCarrick Report. It is confounding, and compelling.
Catholics who seek holiness in times of scandal tend often to be conduits of Christian renewal.
Making such a choice, I’ve learned by my failures, is easier said than done.
There is very little saccharine or romantic about following Jesus, especially when confronted with the sinfulness of the Church’s own leaders. There is often more setback than progress.
Humility helps – remembering our own failures tends to put the sins of others in perspective. Confession and the Eucharist help all the more.
Embracing the cross does not mean accepting or tolerating the presence of sin in the Church. Rather it means both assiduously calling for reform and repenting seriously for one’s own sins and shortcomings. Maintaining communion with the Church, even while helping to rebuild it.
The mission of the Gospel probably has very little to do with tweeking existing policy. A statement of regret from the U.S. bishops’ conference is unlikely to spark a renewal of faith in Jesus Christ.
In the wake of the McCarrick Report, renewal of the Church likely has most to do with whether ordinary Catholics will turn to Christ, and embrace his suffering on the cross. That isn’t easy. But it is the path to eternal life, and, in this life, its consequences might well be surprising.
[…]
Most of them are heterodox leftists more interested in turning the Church into a secular NGO. Pathetic.
True.
Francis visits one more assault on the People of God. As if they need one more reason to turn from him and turn to Him. No matter how much more Francis justifies himself, many more will refuse to listen. We simply won’t hear any more. If he’s thinking of pulling out his megaphone, we suggest he fugghitaboutit. We’ve already tuned to the gospel channel which isn’t his.
Agreed
McElroy, the man best known for kicking sand on doctrines that offend modern sensibilities (and pelvises!), is now a cardinal. It’s been fairly clear for the past six years or so that Bergoglio is stacking the next conclave with men of this caliber. No surprises here, sadly.
Say Rich: Yeah, I agree. If the next Pope is like Bergoglio, I very much believe there will be a Schism
Yes, and very repulsive.
Um, McElroy? Right… Typical..a great archbishop in LA & other good, faithful candidates… But this guy… Really?
a great archbishop in LA
If Gomez is “great” then the bar is set awfully low.
Wishing the 21 new cardinals to be, God’s blessings.
Amen to that.
The homosexualization of the church proceeds apace.
Is that so? Can you tell me why you consider Card Roche to be pro-homosexual? Or the Indians, South Americans and Africans in the list to be what you label them to be?
Roche and McElroy.
Sure looks like he is “stacking the deck”. Church will have a hard time recovering from this blatant power grab.
It is difficult to say who is the worst pick in this rogue’s gallery of dissidents, leftists, and homophile protectors of pederasts. But my money is on McElroy as absolutely the WORST American prelate whose name is not Cupich.
Precisely.
Typical Francis.
Ignore San Francisco and the orthodox. Promote the heterodox.
McElroy…really?
How much longer, Lord?
Outrageous that he names the most pro-choice bishop in the US a cardinal.
What a slap in the face for faithful Catholics.
McElroy and Roche? That’s the best Francis can do?
Lord, help us.
It says something that such milquetoast liberal prelates like Gomez and Dolan, let alone Chaput and Cordileone, are unacceptable to Francis. Ted McCarrick remains the most influential and powerful Catholic in America.
Looks like a crop of good shepherds and bishops to the College. Well done, San Diego.
The train wreck continues.
My money is on Cardinal Cupich as the likely next pope (not that I like the idea one bit!)
From the Papacy of Paul VI, the steady and faithful helmsman of the Barque of Saint Peter, to the election and brief papacy of the “smiling” John Paul I; from the astounding, dramatic and world altering papal period of the orthodox, secure and crystal clear, faithful teacher of the faith, John Paul II (the Great); from the timid, but courageous yet unjustly maligned, theological guru and faithful papal teacher Pope Benedict XVI (future Doctor of the Church) to the present state of utter papal and eclesial confusion…. HOW IN GOD’S NAME DID WE GET HERE??????
I believe that the confusion is concocted. The Holy Spirit, I believe, is always in charge of our Lord’s Church. Jesus assured us of that, and I do trust him.
You might want to rethink that. The confusion is not concocted, you are simply trying to defend the indefensible. Although it’s a sweeping generalization, it’s safe to say that the Holy Spirit is probably not involved in appointing progressives to positions of authority in the church.
Mal is right. If the confusion isn’t self-inflicted, it can be a stubborn unwillingness to read Pope Francis and other church documents and think for oneself. The Holy Spirit is always with the Body. One ideology or another has nothing to do with it
The Catholic Church in America that McCarrick helped build with its support of active homosexuality is still with us. The Spirit of McCarrick alive!
I was astonished to see McElroy’s elevation but shouldn’t have been. Proof that it really does pay to be a worthless servile flatterer. So glad that for logistical reasons (new installation, Covid) neither of my children had their Confirmation from him. I’m not sure it would even be valid.
Diluting the teachings of the Catholic Church certainly seems to be Francis’ goal. He has been preparing worldwide Catholics for this since his election, and making cardinals of like-minded men instead of those who would stand firm on the foundation of Christ is the means to that end. It’s too bad that he didn’t make good on his promise of a short pontificate. He has created a crisis for the Catholic Church on his own, and seems hell-bent on undermining Her. He tests the Holy Spirit.
If this is true that the Pope passed over Bishop Cordileone over his suspension of Holy Eucharist for Pelosi and chose a Bishop who supports Pro-Abortion “catholics” receiving of the Eucharist then what as the faithful are we to believe any longer? Truth is truth, Belief in the tenets of our faith are Truth, there is no grey area, there is no “walking a fine line”. Sin is sin, we are all sinners but if I have mortal sin on my soul I cannot and should not receive the Eucharist and if I pronounce my Mortal Sin, support it in word and/or action publicly I should not receive and be suspended from receiving. Where are our Cardinals our Bishops our Priests that took vows to shepherd the flock and teach them Truth. Sadly there is schism coming to our Church, it is from those who are not faithful to Church teaching and instead is simply secular, political and evil. What are we to do? Where are we to go if the successor to Peter plays games and favors that which is not good but supports evil?
It’s seriously doubtful that San Francisco excommunication had any influence at all on naming this batch of cardinals, which was probably in the works for weeks, if not months. American politics is interesting to some Americans. Likely not to the Holy Father or most any others in Rome.
I also don’t understand the bellyaching about Pope Francis “packing” the College of Cardinals. Nobody seemed to complain about it heading into the 1990s. It’s a feature of the office. There are no Republican Senators in Rome to clog the drain of moving governance along. Thank goodness.
So what if it has been going ‘along for months’?
The difference in the ‘90’s was not having a Pope who refuses to clarify his own encyclicals and exhortations.
As a Democrat, you have a constant data stream – including a three year corrupt and fraudulent effort to bring down a sitting president from the top politicians in your Party – with your Democrats ‘clogging the drain of moving governance along’.
fake news, sir. I am a political independent and always have been. I can also read Vatican documents and find nothing “confusing” in the Holy Father’s writings. As for so-what, it kind of torpedoes the notion that naming one guy to the College is somehow an insult to other bishops, be they two, four-thousand, or some number in between.
There are books written years ago that have suggested this would happen in the Church, from Clowns of God to the Final Conclave. All along with the heresy taking place in the Church in Germany, in places of So. America and certainly in the USA with Cardinals and Bishops like Cupich, Gregory, McElroy and others and then we have those prelates in power like Dolan who prefer to smile and “brush off” his brethren’s wrong teaching. Wonder why the Church is losing faithful, look no further than those who prefer to teach wrongly; wonder why some diocese and parishes are thriving look no further than their Holy Bishops and Priests who follow Christ!
David, if this is the long predicted turning point of loss of faith, apostasy we know Christ remains with us, within the faithful of the Mystical Body, as you’re aware. Were that worse case scenario to occur we’ll be strengthened by Our Lord to endure. A moment to come ever closer to Christ and to give him greater glory by our steadfast witness.
As it seems now with the Synod on Synodality, its leadership, these questionable appointments et al we’re not, at least those who are swept along – headed for a good place. Except those of us blessed with a living faith. We should, as our mission offer prayer, what we can for the many who are beguiled.
Rod Dreher sums up the 2013 fraud:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/
The most evident mark of God’s anger and the most terrible castigation He can inflict upon the world are manifested when He permits His people to fall into the hands of clerics who are priests more in name than in deed, priests who practice the cruelty of ravening wolves rather than the charity and affection of devoted shepherds. –St. John Eudes