McCarrick’s Ghost Haunts The Hierarchy

By CHRISTOPHER MANION

“We cannot have a Dallas 2, Dallas 3, and Dallas 4,” then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick told his brother bishops in November 2002. “We need to accept these norms and move on with these new canonical procedures that we have to make sure that what we do is always just and honest, we have no choice.”
The scene was the second day of the USCCB’s annual meeting in Baltimore. The action item was the vote on “The Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People,” a document that McCarrick had engineered. The “Dallas 2002” referred to the USCCB’s meeting in June of that year, where the bishops had responded to the exploding abuse and cover-up crisis by voting to exempt themselves from the final version of the “charter” that they would adopt in November.
“It’s over,” Washington Auxiliary Bishop Kevin Farrell told the Knights of Malta in February 2002. Payouts had been made, and appropriate action taken. That April, USCCB officials told the Vatican not to worry. Our bishops could handle the situation themselves, they insisted. There would be “no more 2002’s.”
Seventeen years, thousands of lawsuits, and four billion dollars later, it still isn’t “over.” Cardinal Farrell, who for six years lived with Cardinal McCarrick, was promoted last week by Pope Francis to be Camerlengo. He will direct all Vatican operations after the death or resignation of Pope Francis, including managing the conclave that will elect the next Pope.
Curiously, Pope Francis chose to announce Farrell’s appointment two days before the Vatican announced McCarrick’s laicization, sending a clear signal to those prelates closely tied to McCarrick — Cardinals Tobin, Cupich, Wuerl, and Farrell himself — that they had nothing to fear from the “McCarrick Matter.”
The message: “It’s over.”

“Over”? Maybe It Isn’t

Admittedly, the timing of the Farrell-McCarrick moves was awkward. But the Vatican had to “do something” to move “toward healing,” as USCCB President Daniel Cardinal DiNardo put it, before the long-anticipated meeting of prelates from every time zone called by Pope Francis to address the abuse crisis.
But “the healing process describes a movement from unhealthy to healthy, or from abnormal to normal,” observes Fr. Jerry Pokorsky, a Virginia pastor. “How Church leaders define ‘normal’ is the key to identifying ecclesial pathologies.”
“Pathologies”? Well, yes. Is the universal refusal to discipline pro-abortion politicians “normal”? When bishops who covered up for abusers unanimously refuse to resign, is that “normal”? Consider Cardinal Cupich, who played a prominent role in the meeting. When he tells a Vatican press conference that homosexuality was “not a cause” of the vast majority of abuse crimes in the U.S., and dismisses that view as a “hypothesis,” is that “normal”?
Trouble lies ahead. Those following the meeting in Rome have noticed the absence of key prelates whose participation would be vital to a successful and credible outcome. Sean Cardinal O’Malley of Boston, the Pope’s closest adviser on the American scandals, did not attend. Just days before the meeting began, Walter Cardinal Brandmueller and Raymond Cardinal Burke raised troubling questions. As authors of the “dubia,” the set of simple, crucial questions that Pope Francis has refused to answer for three years, they have been sidelined by the Vatican. Unrelenting, they asked participants a critical question that Cupich desperately wants to ignore:
“The plague of the homosexual agenda has been spread within the Church, promoted by organized networks and protected by a climate of complicity and a conspiracy of silence. The roots of this phenomenon are clearly found in that atmosphere of materialism, of relativism, and of hedonism, in which the existence of an absolute moral law, that is without exceptions, is openly called into question.
“Sexual abuse is blamed on clericalism. But the first and primary fault of the clergy does not rest in the abuse of power but in having gone away from the truth of the Gospel. The even public denial, by words and by acts, of the divine and natural law, is at the root of the evil that corrupts certain circles in the Church.
“In the face of this situation, cardinals and bishops are silent. Will you also be silent on the occasion of the meeting called in the Vatican?”
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, whose 2018 testimony revealing McCarrick’s mafia-like syndicate rocked the hierarchy to its foundations, asked last week, “Why does Pope Francis keep and even call as his close collaborators people who are notorious homosexuals?”
Ten years ago social scientist and Humanae Vitae advocate Mary Eberstadt called the homosexual network “the elephant in the sacristy.” Clearly it’s not going away any time soon.

Pro-Life Student,
Target Of The Left,
Strikes Back

On February 19, lawyers for Nick Sandmann, a student at Kentucky’s Covington Catholic High School, filed a $250 million libel suit against The Washington Post. The paper “claim[ed] leadership of a mainstream and social media mob of bullies which attacked, vilified, and threatened Nicholas Sandmann, an innocent secondary school child,” a statement from his lawyers said.
“The Post wrongfully targeted and bullied Nicholas because he was the white, Catholic student wearing a red ‘Make America Great Again’ souvenir cap on a school field trip to the January 18 March for Life in Washington, D.C., when he was unexpectedly and suddenly confronted by Nathan Phillips (“Phillips”), a known Native American activist, who beat a drum and sang loudly within inches of his face,” the statement continued.
“This lawsuit is brought against the Post to seek legal redress for its negligent, reckless, and malicious attacks on Nicholas which caused permanent damage to his life and reputation. . . . The Post proved itself to be a loud and aggressive bully with a bully pulpit.”
“The Post must be dealt with the same way every bully is dealt with and that is hold the bully fully accountable for its wrongdoing in a manner which effectively deters the bully from again bullying other children.”
As The Wanderer reported after the incident, many Catholics, pro-lifers, and Trump supporters were duped by the massive hate campaign, and criticized Sandmann. First among them was Covington Bishop Roger Foys. Within three hours of being contacted by Nick’s lawyers, he relented, complaining that, yes, he had actually been “bullied” into criticizing the boy whom he serves as shepherd.
But some bullies did not relent — in fact, they doubled down. Most troubling is the case of the Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers, who lashed out at the students on Twitter. “Do not let the ignorant, malicious actions of a racist mob further tarnish the reputation of the Church,” they tweeted the morning after the March. “Silence from Catholic circles after watching the disgusting video shouts consent. “Father, forgive them, for they know not wtf they’re doing.” [“wtf” is an acronym for a sexual vulgarity].
“It will not be enough for Church leaders to denounce what the students did. Nothing less than a public apology and public penance will suffice,” they added.
When the truth about the incident emerged, the Maryknolls refused to apologize. Instead, they blocked access to their account.
Since 1971 this writer has visited Maryknoll missions throughout Latin America. Unfortunately, the order seems to have been infected by Liberation Theology, a deadly virus that has penetrated the U.S. clerisy as well. Many faithful Catholics, this writer included, have given the Maryknolls thousands of dollars over the years to support God’s work. Are we really supporting a band of mean-spirited leftist ideologues using religion as a cover?
The Maryknolls condemned the students’ “ignorant, malicious actions.” Now that the facts are in, that phrase might well be turned around and applied to the Maryknolls by the Linwood Law Firm, should the order be among the targets of the more than fifty lawsuits the firm plans to file. Should that eventuality come to pass, a once-laudable community might be forced into shame and bankruptcy.
The Linwood Law Firm calls this suit “the first of many.”