Washington D.C., Aug 27, 2018 / 05:09 pm (CNA).- The Archdiocese of Washington has declined to confirm new details about the post-retirement living arrangements of Archbishop Theodore McCarrick, and maintained that Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Washington’s archbishop, was unaware of alleged Vatican sanctions against McCarrick.
Archbishop Carlo Vigano, former Vatican ambassador to the U.S., claimed in an Aug. 25 statement that McCarrick was directed by the Vatican in 2009 or 2010 to discontinue living in a seminary, among other restrictions.
Vigano wrote that in 2009 or 2010 “Pope Benedict had imposed on Cardinal McCarrick sanctions similar to those now imposed on him by Pope Francis: the cardinal was to leave the seminary where he was living, he was forbidden to celebrate [Mass] in public, to participate in public meetings, to give lectures, to travel, with the obligation of dedicating himself to a life of prayer and penance.”
The archbishop said that McCarrick, the retired Archbishop of Washington, was at that time known by the Vatican to have committed acts of sexual immorality involving seminarians and priests.
On Aug. 25, the same day as the release of Viganò’s statement, a spokesman for Wuerl told CNA that “Cardinal Wuerl did not receive documentation or information from the Holy See specific to Cardinal McCarrick’s behavior or any of the prohibitions on his life and ministry suggested by Archbishop Vigano.”
Viganò wrote that Pope Benedict’s sanctions explicitly included an order to “leave the seminary where he was living.” At the time, McCarrick was a resident at the Redemptoris Mater Archdiocesan Seminary in the Archdiocese of Washington, where he had a self-contained apartment.
Two sources present at a 2008 meeting between McCarrick and Sambi told CNA that the nuncio instructed McCarrick to leave the seminary at that time. According to those sources, Sambi told McCarrick his departure was the direct instruction of Pope Benedict XVI. They stressed to CNA that they were unaware of any knowledge Cardinal Wuerl may have had of Sambi’s instructions.
McCarrick did make plans to leave the seminary at the end of 2008. His next home was the parish of St. Thomas the Apostle in Woodley Park, an upscale neighborhood in central Washington D.C.
One of the four priests resident in the rectory of St. Thomas’ parish in 2008-2009 recalls being told in December of 2008 that he would have to move out of his rooms in the parish to accommodate a “mystery VIP.”
“It was all very sudden,” he told CNA. “I was moved around but given another room in the rectory.” The priest told CNA he was informed by the pastor of the parish that it was McCarrick moving in, and that his arrival caused considerable upheaval.
“There was significant construction to create his suite, which took over two prior suites and two full baths, as well as the single guest room next to me which was converted into a private chapel for McCarrick’s exclusive use.”
The construction apparently continued during the first two months of 2009, with McCarrick moving in either late February or early March.
Despite the preparations and expenditures being made for McCarrick’s arrival, Ed McFadden, spokesman for the Archdiocese of Washington, told CNA on Aug. 27 that “Archbishop McCarrick typically made his own housing arrangements and did not directly involve the Archdiocese of Washington.”
Archdiocesan policy requires that any expenditure by a parish of more than $25,000 have the explicit approval of either the archbishop or the Moderator of the Curia. When asked directly about the construction at St. Thomas, the Archdiocese of Washington refused to comment on who had approved or funded the renovations.
The priest-resident of St. Thomas told CNA that he been told that McCarrick was “no longer allowed” to live in the seminary, and that Cardinal Wuerl had “ordered” the move, but he stressed that he did not have direct knowledge of those circumstances.
Fr. Rory McKee, pastor of St. Thomas in 2009, declined to comment, and directed enquiries to the archdiocesan communications office.
Despite repeated requests, the Archdiocese of Washington declined to confirm when McCarrick moved into St. Thomas, or when he left.
CNA previously reported that McCarrick next lived alongside a house of priestly formation belonging to the Institute of the Incarnate Word (IVE) on the property of St. John Baptist de la Salle is located in Chillum, Md.
Sources told CNA that the cardinal likely moved to the property in the summer of 2010, though the Archdiocese of Washington declined to comment.
McCarrick is reported to have had, for a time, an IVE brother in formation living in his residence, which was on the parish property but separate from the house of formation. At least two members of the IVE served as assistants to McCarrick between 2014 and 2018.
In July, the Archdiocese of Washington told CNA that McCarrick “made his own living arrangements for his retirement,” and declined to comment on his residence at the John Baptist de la Salle property.
On June 20, the Archdiocese of New York reported that it had found credible an allegation that McCarrick committed acts of child sexual abuse. Wuerl wrote at the time that he was “saddened and shocked” by the allegation.
On the same day, Cardinal Joseph Tobin confirmed that the McCarrick’s former dioceses of Newark and Metuchen had reached settlements with adults who said McCarrick had engaged in sexual misconduct. In response, Wuerl specifically denied that he had been told of several out-of-court settlements made on McCarrick’s behalf by his former dioceses of Metuchen and Newark.
On Aug. 14, a report by a Pennsylvania grand jury investigating clerical sexual abuse mentioned Wuerl, previously the Bishop of Pittsburgh, more than 200 times. Defending himself against charges of mishandling priests who had been accused of child sexual abuse, Wuerl reported in at least one case being uninformed about the scope of allegations against a priest whom he permitted to minister in the Diocese of Reno-Las Vegas.
Wuerl has faced mounting pressure and calls for his resignation. Those close to Cardinal Wuerl insist that he has not asked the pope to accept his letter of resignation. Wuerl is said to be planning to attend the November plenary meeting of the U.S. bishops’ conference, which is expected to focus on the fallout of the McCarrick and Pennsylvania scandals.
[…]
Sadly, The Times signed their names erroneously. The 1971 letter listed them properly. These “Lords” (peers) are members of the upper chamber of British parliament but not one is an aristocrat. All appointed due to their service in arts, culture, commerce, social justice, etc. and especially music and drama.
entitling the article “British lords” just compounds the error.
I think it’s disgusting that CNA gives traction to ANY statement regarding the Catholic Church and its liturgical expression to the British who turned apostate almost to a man 500 years ago.
Just to illustrate the cultural and moral absurdity of paying attention to anything the British House of Lords has to say about the Catholic Church, the lead-in to the CNA article refers to them as: “A distinguished cadre of British public figures.” Bianca Jagger is distinguished? Now really! I think the folks over at CNA who write such nonsense ought to be fired.
The ears of the Vatican have been deaf to the voices of Catholics who desire the Latin Mass to continue. Perhaps they’ll experience an “ephphatha” moment, however, if non-Catholic celebrities desire it to continue. The current regime seems big on celebrities.
I confess I don’t know what to make of this.
What to make of this? Well, there might be another shoe to fall. Try this…
One of the signatories to the letter is the Catholic Julian Fellowes, writer of the “Downton Abbey” popular TV series—where the last lines of the last episode effectively cast the entire series on British social change as an apologetic for inevitable social and cultural acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle. As with possible further quarantining of TLM, even binary human sexuality and marriage (and Humanae Vitae?) are already secularly redefined and scripted as just another museum piece.
So, as a possible Vaticanista response to the British House of Lords, TLM as just another “‘magnificent’ cultural artifact” for the museums…very synodal, that.
The simple fact that Francis is trying to abolish a form of worship that has been with us for almost 2,000 years – Need anything more be said?
Stop this “Mass of Ages” nonsense. Be more nuanced. Take the difference between “essence” and “form.” The Mass in its “essence” (meal, sacrifice, real presence) is unchanged for 2,000 years. Through this span of time it has undergone reforms in its “form” (ritual order, ceremonial flow, languages). The essence of the Novus Ordo (1969 Missal) is the same as that of the Vetus Ordo (1962 Missal). The form of the Vetus Ordo is not 2,000 years old.
Why, may I ask, do people get up at 5 in the morning EVERY SUNDAY and set out for the Latin Mass 100 miles away, on the way passing by a church – only 5 miles from their home – where the Novus Ordo is celebrated?
What is the ‘Vetus Ordo’?
In conclusion – “This is a painful and confusing prospect, especially for the growing number of YOUNG CATHOLICS, WHOSE FAITH HAS BEEN NURTURED BY IT.” (EM)
I noticed you placed meal before sacrifice. The mass is first and foremost the same sacrifice that Christ went through but in a non physical way. The old mass express that clearly, the new mass subdues it for ecumenical consideration. By the way, the two liturgies are not the same.
Good for Tom Holland and God bless him. I’ve enjoyed listening to his podcasts: The Rest is History.
What’s the point? Is it to achieve uniformity, to dispose the faithful to a new hermeneutic of Gospel perspectives? Or is it more, that the TLM is emblematic of an inadmissible past destined for annihilation, as are doctrines condemning homosexuality, the requirement to bear the cross for repentance of sins, conversion of manners for reception of the holy Eucharist, the essential nature of the Mass as sacrifice?
Why doesn’t His Holiness speak clearly on this straining issue within the universal Church? We are dismayed, we are cast into darkness while a Roman pontiff presides at a distance as if possessed of superior knowledge while the sacrifice of the Mass is offered [was the same when presiding during the Vatican lawn worship of an Amazonian idol a portent of this moment?]. Is the doctrine of Christ’s bloody sacrifice a retention of an expired past?
Pope Francis possesses the authority to eliminate what is emblematic of a long, sacred history of worship, witness by the blood of our martyrs. But he has zero authority to change the hearts of the faithful from authentic worship of our crucified Lord.
MIND-BOGGLING TRAGEDY OR CRIMINALITY (for which we must thank God)
Can we be honest?
The whole history of the Church since the early 1960s (excepting a few saintly, heroic individuals who are widely disparaged or forgotten) is one big mind-boggling tragedy, or moral crime.
Only the decades-long Communist domination of Russia and Eastern Europe is comparable, in my mind.
Well, I can think of one other comparable situation in U.S. history:
In the 1940s and 1950s, Congressional and FBI investigations into covert Communist influence in Hollywood lead to hundreds of Communist screenwriters, actors, and directors being blacklisted (meaning none of the movie studios would hire them).
But by the 1960s, all the formerly blacklisted Communists were welcomed back into Hollywood as heroes and martyrs, and Hollywood began producing an endless stream of films that inspire immorality, godlessness, rebellion against moral authority, unrestrained violence, unrestrained lust, sex outside of marriage, divorce, unrestrained greed, etc.
But I guess this is all happening as per divine “permissive will.”
As such, following the Little Flower, I guess we should thank God even for these tragedies and crimes.
We should get one with seeking and touching the all-pure God in the little chapels of our souls.
Just to add a discursive footnote:
Humiliated and discredited after his 1950-53 accusations, Senator Eugene McCarthy (“McCarthyism”) also was subject to a minutely researched and different narrative (William F. Buckley, Jr. and L. Brent Bozell, “McCarthy and his Enemies: the Record and its Meaning,” Regnery, 1954/1961). Lots of attention to names, maneuverings and personal histories, to hearing transcripts, and to a few other key hearings curiously never conducted.
My summary recollection is that the new Senator McCarthy was seen as simply too green in his rhetoric, and that he miss-stepped by charging personalities as card-carrying communists, rather than more accurately as demonstrated serious security threats. Usually not full-blown Communists, but soft-headed “anti-anti-Communists.”
At one point (for one example) we learn that between 1948 and 1952, the period overlapping the McCarthy hearings (1950-1953), the State Department did in fact release 15 security risks, but it is not clear to the authors how many of these were among those named by McCarthy. A contrarian narrative, incisive and scholarly.
Back to Hollywood–As president of the screen actors guild, Ronald Reagan detected and resisted that domain of influence/infiltration (as a result, he switched political parties in 1962), and later as President of the United States was key to cutting the head off the snake–the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
The corruption of Hollywood might claim that ironic benefit to civilization.
Well, it is not as if Pope Benedict, and all The Popes after Vatican lI did not recognize The Latin Mass is a Treasure.
Pray for the restoration of The Papacy as instituted by Christ.