Vatican City, Dec 13, 2019 / 09:56 am (CNA).- American bishops from the Midwest met with Pope Francis this week with questions about the outcome of the Vatican’s investigation of Theodore McCarrick.
“I did ask about the McCarrick situation. That was something that all of us were very interested in knowing where this was going. And very glad to hear that a report is coming, and not sure when it will be, probably after the beginning of the new year,” Bishop Earl Boyea of Lansing told EWTN Dec. 13.
The seventeen bishops from Ohio and Michigan (Region VI of the US bishops) met with the pope for two hours Dec. 10 as a part of their ad limina visit to Rome, and had the opportunity to ask the pope questions.
Bishop Boyea said he asked Pope Francis about the promised McCarrick report, and that the pope described it for them. He said that the bishops also discussed the report with the Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin.
Parolin is “a little more nervous about the reception of this in the public,” he added.
The Vatican announced that it would conduct a review of files on McCarrick in October 2018.
At the U.S. bishops’ conference fall meeting in Baltimore Nov. 11-13, Boyea asked that an update on the Vatican’s McCarrick investigation be added to the agenda. Cardinal Sean O’Malley responded that the Holy See intended to publish the results of the investigation in the new year, “if not before Christmas.”
O’Malley said that the bishops of New England also discussed the McCarrick report during their ad limina meeting with Francis in early November before the U.S bishops meeting.
The cardinal said he was shown a “hefty document” by the Vatican, which is being translated into Italian for a presentation to Pope Francis, with an intended publication by early 2020.
Reports of McCarrick’s history of sexual abuse were initially made public in June 2018, when the Archdiocese of New York announced that a sexual abuse allegation against then-retired Cardinal McCarrick was “credible and substantiated.”
Subsequent reports of sexual abuse or harassment of children and seminarians by McCarrick surfaced, and Pope Francis accepted his resignation from the College of Cardinals and assigned him to a life of prayer and penance in July 2018.
In August 2018, former apostolic nuncio to the U.S. Carlo Maria Vigano claimed that Pope Francis had known about existing sanctions on McCarrick but chose to repeal them.
At their November 2018 meeting, just months after settlements of the Archdioceses of New York and Newark of abuse cases involving McCarrick were made public, the bishops were set to vote on a number of measures to deal with the clergy sex abuse crisis including a call for the Vatican to release all documents about McCarrick in accord with canon and civil law.
However, after the Vatican requested shortly before the meeting that the bishops not take action on the abuse crisis until an international summit of bishops in Rome in early 2019, the bishops did not end up voting on the McCarrick measure because of fears they could be viewed at odds with Rome.
Pope Francis dismissed McCarrick from the clerical state in February 2019, shortly before convening a summit of bishops from around the world on clergy sexual abuse. The Vatican’s accelerated investigation into McCarrick’s case was an “administrative penal process,” not a full juridical process, but one used when the evidence in the case is overwhelming.
Bishops Boyea said that he expects that the anticipated McCarrick report will “be like peeling a scab off” for the Church in the U.S. “It is going to be tough, we know that, but it is better to get that out and get that done with,” he said.
“This is ultimately for the good of the Church. The truth cannot hurt the Church,” Boyea told EWTN.
[…]
TO THOSE IN CHARGE OF THE VATICAN: This is what happens when you open your borders and allow free-access to “migrants.” Pope Leo ought to just consider this miscreant a “migrant.”
Why drag migrants into this?
Simply because this person illegally trespassed upon sacred ground. Please note that the Vatican police FORCIBLY removed him from the premises. However, according to Leonine Doctrine, this intruder should have been welcomed as Christ and permitted to do whatever he wanted to do since he “migrated” to that area of the sanctuary. Why didnt Leo treat him as a guest like he counsels our government to do? Please, dear Br. Jaques, let us know what the Vatican authorities did with this individual. Did they throw him in jail? Will they prosecute him? Maybe just give him a cupful of leftover ice and send him on his way? He’s a migrant simply because he went where he was not supposed to be (that is, unless Leo tells us otherwise).
It would seem the far greater desecration made than these mindless crazies was the Jubilee Celebration parade into St Peter’s Basilica homosexuals flaunting their ‘life choices’ [Pope Leo’s terminology] insulting Catholic doctrine with an expletive, and receiving the Holy Eucharist.
Leo XIV had to be informed beforehand to permit Fr James Martin SJ to arrange this depravity spectacle. Since his elevation to the papacy Leo XIV has made it consistently clear where he stands. Who would have conceived this occurring during Benedict’s or John Paul’s pontificates? This is a time for reparation and strengthening of faith in Christ.
I was thinking the same thing, Fr. Morello. It seems as if something very evil is at work over there and this last episode is just one more outward or blatant instance of it. It makes one cry. Francis of Assisi, pray for the Church that once you rebuilt; Anthony of Padua, pray for the Church that you so well helped once.
Oscar, you allude to what may well be the marker for “something very evil is at work over there”. I’ve referred to it elsewhere as the cultic Pachamama idolatry ceremonies that occurred at the Vatican under Francis I. Since that time there’ve been a chain of controversial events, allegedly contrary to Apostolic tradition.
In remarks regarding these altar desecrations Bishop Athanasius Schneider believes they are not as serious as those Pachamama worship ceremonies, which were violations of the first commandment. Sins of idolatry are more egregious than what followed. My opinion is that the Pachamama idolatry was the source of what has followed.
It doesn’t appear that there was a exorcism ritual [the formal blessing of a house is an exorcism ritual] to correct that idolatry due to the involvement and respect given to Pope Francis.
Fr Peter you are right that from a point of view of dates – Pachamama Ceremony was October 4 2019 – all the evil flows from that date onwards. The subsequent dessecrations are all also post Traditionis Custodes 16.07.2021. So, two major dates.
The sanctification of daily TLM on the side altars of “the panting heart of Rome” – as the priests loudly beat their chests – was axed by application of Traditionis Custodes brutally ending those daily masses which were calling down graces to the heart of the Church’s tresury.
Dessecration is the consequence of the dessacrilisation of St Peter’s: the application of Traditionis Custodes by Churchmen. It is an unprecedented punishment. The message is clearly a call back to faith of the fathers, as the Church continues to persecute thriving faithful parishes for the crime of TLM.
Holy father, hear the cry from the formerly panting heart of Rome: Bergoglioism is not the Faith of our Fathers.
Just when you think humans can’t possibly do anything more disgusting, along comes a story like this.
I am hopeful this guy will do a VERY long stint in jail. And personally, I am tired of hearing “by reason of insanity” used as a way to get people exempted from the punishment they so richly deserve. Jail for a bunch of years, and then throw him into a mental hospital when the prison term expires.
The steward who was forgiven?
As all catholics know, forgiveness does not mean you are exempt from punishment for your sins when you are judged. Why should you be exempt in this world? Further, is there a point in offering forgiveness when there has been no sign of repentance?
I am a little more than tired of what I call the “tyranny of nice”. That is, the way in which too much of secular society views sin, violence and and immorality. Which means everything is all ok, no matter what heinous crime you commit. Because no one wants anyone to “feel bad” by speaking the truth about what someone has done. Apparently, thats worse than the crime itself in some circles. Sorry, but I think the fact that we do not hold people accountable for bad behavior is part of the reason civil society is on the brink of dissolving.
Mill stone around the neck?? Jesus advised forgiveness. He never said the sins didnt matter.
LJ, you get my nomination for Pope. You get it!
“This is what happens when you open your borders and allow free-access to “migrants.”
No, this is what happens when the Church fails to repent for abuse. It also happens when the Church herself allows/invites “the abomination of desolation” into her buildings and her heart, and becomes a whore instead of a bride. One needs only to refer to the Old Testament to see that.
In a sense, a man urinated on the altar of St Peter’s gave a physical expression of a rapidly escalating spiritual abuse which has been dealt to Our Lord and to His Bride, the Church, by the hands of her hierarchy. Recently we saw “f*ck the rules” and other phenomena (invited in by the Vatican) exactly in the same place; St Peter’s was desecrated already.
Attention not deserved. As much as possible, do not broadcast. Do the purification without broadcast.
Clergy, abandon the adolescent mentality fixation with media.
One could also argue that loving and accepting ALL of God’s children as Pope Leo is doing is in line with reparation and strengthening faith in Christ.
It was reported elsewhere that a penitential rite was performed. My question: Was a penitential rite done after Bergoglio desecrated the Basilica with the worship of the Pachamama demon within its sacred walls?
The man is clearly not well. What happened is awful, but if he’s mentally ill he’s not responsible for his actions. He should get help, we should pray for that man, the altar should be cleaned and re-consecrated and we should move on. We shouldn’t make more out of this than needed.
Unless these people are crazy enough to think a person is a tree, they know what they are doing. This “mentally ill” plea is just a convenient way for those on the left to excuse uncivil behavior. Its said that many of those who are jailed have some level of emotional problem. That doesnt make them innocent. That does nothing to negate the crime they have committed or help heal their victims. “Mentally ill” gets the criminal off the hook and free to commit violence again. I am doubtful you or anyone else would think its ok to “move on” if your spouse were killed by a DWI driver, or some other violent crime was committed against a loved one. People like this seldom commit one crime. As long as they are not incarcerated, the record shows they commit crimes over and over again. Often violent crimes. Much like the young Ukrainian woman who was stabbed to death on the train recently in an unprovoked attack. She could have been any one of us. Being a Christian does not require you to cheerfully be a victim.
Psychosis is a whole different thing from an emotional trouble.
I have no idea what the man in this situation suffers from but I agree that the seriously mentally ill need better care and that can include commitment in psychiatric facilities.
Years ago an unbalanced man tried to burn down our cathedral. It wasn’t his first attempt at destroying a church.
Psychiatric hospitals have a place.
💯 percent. I say this as a therapist. Mental illness is an overused excuse for criminal behavior. It’s a ploy used to excuse even the most heinous crimes and puts repeat offenders back on the streets. If the insanity plea is used the criminal should be committed to a mental institution indefinitely and held there until they no longer pose a threat to the public according to stringent standards.
As to the Gospel of Nice? It has not saved one single soul.