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.
[…]
I wish two things:
1. That the Vatican cease defining itself as a State. We are a Church. We exist in the world but are not of this world. States are creations of this world.
2. Stop interfering in the temporal affairs of the United States. As a Catholic, I find the Vatican’s statements unwelcome.
The Vatican has been both the Church and a city-state ever since the 1929 Lateran Treaty recognized the papacy as more than a “prisoner of the Vatican” (a consequence of the revolutionary loss of the Eternal City and the historically curious papal states to the new and larger nation-state of Italy, in 1870). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City
The status as a state among states renders possible an ear and a voice among the current political idiom of nation-states, although membership in the United Nations remains that of a non-member Permanent Observer State, since 1964.
This distinctive membership restriction is surely a good thing, since it protects the Vatican and the universal Catholic Church from being identified as just another member among the 193 member states–as you correctly argue should never be the case.
Cardinal Parolin, the architect of Communist-Party-Secret-Accords is a man who should not be posturing about governing with “wisdom,” etc.
And citizens faithful to Christ have no interest in getting “dialogued” by the apostate-and-homosexual-art-curator Spadaro.
The word obtuse seems apt.
CHRIS: You say it better than I. Thanks
@ Peter Beaulieu. Always thought it curious too that the Church became the equivalent of a nation. Although the title was modified to papal states. Certainly an oddity on the surface.
You’re probably aware that Pippin King of the Franks ceded the territories it had wrenched from the expanding Germanic Lombards. At the time during the 8th century it also benefited the papacy to rely on Frankish protection rather than the Eastern Byzantine empire due to imposition of taxes, and growing disagreement on doctrine examples, iconoclasm, filioque clause.
It can be argued either way whether Italian unification during the late 19th century resulting in the loss of the papal states benefited Catholicism. The transition from a temporal power [we even had a warlord Pope Julius II expanding territory] to a visibly more spiritual authority. From the day of revolutions of Pius IX to the despotic political movements of Pius XII the greatly territorially reduced Vatican State seemed a greater presence for the advocation of justice.
Deacon, I’m not sure if my understanding is correct. If you have time, please clarify for me. Thanks. My understanding is that Vatican City is a “state” like any other nation–a very tiny State, but still a state with a seat and vote at the United Nations and the right to offer opinions, defend itself, send troops to war, provide aid for nations experiencing a disaster or conflict, etc.
But Holy Mother Church is a Church, THE Holy Catholic Church that Jesus Christ Himself founded.
One question that I have–is the Pope the “president” or “mayor” of Vatican City, or are other leaders, perhaps even non-clergy or non-religious, elected or appointed? Or is Vatican City a monarchy with no other leadership than a king (the Pope?).
The latter Mrs. Whitlock. The Pope is the Head of State. He probably has infinitely more power when it comes to the Vatican City/State than the King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland who is a Head of State. He can name and depose at will. He answers to no human person.
Yes “ in the World but not of the World” I’ve been saying this for a long time, but that said the reality is that the Vatican IS a state and as such must operate as one. Unfortunately the Pope has to wear two hats as both head of State and head of Church. Not an easy task and not of his making. Thus he has an obligation to act as a voice and mediator in temporal affairs. Not to take sides or make alliances like other nations do is very difficult. To study the position of the Papacy during the Second World War illustrates how difficult this can be.
Perhaps one day we will have to abandon the Vatican and become a pilgrim people, but until then we must operate within this very messy and imperfect arrangement and allow the Pope to make mistakes just like any other temporal ruler.
And, yet, there’s a difference between the Vatican and the Holy See.
These two terms are not interchangeable. Here are the new details about how all this fits together: https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2023-06-05/vatican-city-state-pope-francis-issues-new-constitution/
I wouldn’t advocate abandoning the Vatican. The Vatican is no larger than any major university campus in the USA. I just think we need to stop thinking of the Pope as Head of State. He is a moral/spiritual leader of Catholics and the Catholic Church. He should be seen as if he were a CEO. There are probably bishops in the USA who have control over large swarths of real estate but have no temporal authority. The Pope is simply Bishop of Rome – primus inter pares.
Most Catholics do not know tht DT saved the NY Catholic schools. During the Wuhan virus crisis, the NY Catholic schools were dire need of funds. They needed billions to survive. The Cardinal called DT for help to save the Catholic schools: “We need billions or we will have to close.” President DT picked up the phone and in 15 minutes he raised billions. Thus he saved the Catholic schools. Amazing. See his speech at the annual Al Smith Catholic dinner for October 2024 in the presence of the Cardinal. His speech starts at min. 29:00; during the speech he looks at the Cardinal and recollects this episode at min 56ff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAwbHmrplak
Okay let’s ignore his lack of morals; his admiration of dictators; his desire to become one; his racist attitude; his threats of violence toward those who disagree with him;
May God have mercy on him and all of us who will lose precious rights under his presidency. I pray for his soul and all who voted for him
Dont bother praying for me, darling. I will pray for you. How sad that you have swallowed whole all of the untrue and slanderous propaganda about Trump which was spread around by the DEMs and their media minions. This is my third time voting Trump , and I am thrilled that he won. I have a Masters Degree,live in an urban area of a blue state, and am not remotely uninformed. Had more people not believed the untruths about him the last election, the country and the world would have likely been saved a lot of pain these last 4 years.
In this election, Trump gathered not only an electoral win but ALSO the popular vote by close to 5 million votes people who are sick of being disparaged and demeaned. A joke about being a dictator is just that–a joke. If you imagine its ok to disparage half the population of the country you need to check your thought processes. I have NEVER heard Trump make a racist remark ( another lie). And if by your fear of “losing precious rights” you are talking about the preservation of abortion, you are on the wrong forum. Trump has never suggested taking away ANY rights from any citizen( unlike the Dems, who have used censorship and lawfare with abandon and continue to do so with abandon against Trump and his lawyers). Maybe Dem governors could speak to their people about the recent election results, and liberal loss, with a tad less hysteria. It might help them.
silly and untrue description of the president. He never threatened violence against those who disagreed with him.. where did you get that? Peace? .. only under him has there been peace, not under biden or obama. How is he racist? He funded black universities, which obama refused to do. Admiration of dictators? I don’t even know how to deal with that one… check your facts.
Well, 72 million people disagree with you. What’s the probability that they’re all wrong and you are right? That would be zero according to my math.
Wisdom? We shall see. All this talk of revenge and retribution is hardly wise. Trump has an opportunity to be statesmanlike. Let’s hope that he takes the high road for a change.
I have never heard Trump talk about revenge. Although, WINNING is the best revenge I suppose. The only people talking about revenge and fighting are the democrats right now. Like the govs of California, NY and Illinois. What news media are you watching?? Take a look at something with more balance.
What virtue postering from the morally bankrupt socialist left!
I’d be happy if the Vatican tended to its own wisdom instead of lecturing others.
Given their Marxist march towards a full embrace of moral relativism, wisdom is something they they can’t even stumble over.
silly and untrue description of the president. He never threatened violence against those who disagreed with him.. where did you get that? Peace? .. only under him has there been peace, not under biden or obama. How is he racist? He funded black universities, which obama refused to do. Admiration of dictators? I don’t even know how to deal with that one… check your facts.
Did Pope Francis not call to congratulate Pres Trump? Why not?..he called Biden, and on other occasions too.
I don’t want to be negative. Lord forgive me.
Who cares if the Vatican is a state or a reclgious conclave of murmuring old MEN? We need to focus and renew our hopes for a saner world. I hope Trump will forge that new path , but his vial rhetoric and actions cause me pause. I may need help from God.
Cardinal Prolin: ““We wish him great wisdom, because this is the main VIRTUE of RULERS according to the Bible,” Note the word VIRTUE. Colossians 3:12 – “Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.” UNfortunatly, I saw none of this during Trump’s campaign or in his daily life. “VIRTUE”?
I still remain hopefull that November 5, 2024 will not be “a day that will live in infamy”. FDR
Colossians 3:12 – “Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.” Unfortunately, I saw none of this during Trump’s campaign or in
his daily life.”
To be fair, regular readers here have not witnessed any of those qualities in your hateful TDS posts either. Maybe people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
So the countless acts of personal charity by Trump, to total strangers as well as friends, do not count as any sort of virtue in your applied understanding of scriptual admonishments? And is virtue better served by your propensities for insulting characterizations that seem to infect most of your commentary?
Enough with the hand-wringing; it’s unbecoming for a man.